Over 30 years of reporting on Congress, federal agencies and the White House for corporate America as well as national trade and professional associations.

Real-Time Reporting of Swaps Could Disadvantage End-Users

Strategic Finance Magazine...August 2011


    With the CFTC and SEC having pushed back to December 31 the date by which Dodd-Frank final rules have to be published, the focus of the business community now returns to convincing the agencies to make changes to some of the proposed rules whose provisions have left a bad taste. CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler who in mid-June announced that the original Dodd-Frank July 16 deadline for final rules was being delayed about six months noted that the effective dates of some of the derivatives provisions in Title VII could be staggered. Title VII includes provisions on swaps trading, repositories and margin requirements for companies who trade swaps simply to manage risk, companies called--in the argot of Title VII--end users, meaning manufacturing, transportation, energy and other companies who don't trade swaps in the manner of AIG and Lehman Brothers. Gensler told the Senate Agriculture Committee on June 16 that staggered dates would mean "those rules that could be implemented sooner should be so as to lower risk." He wasn't clear what he meant by that. In a similar vein, he noted that clearinghouses, for example, may be required to be registered and provide for client clearing at an effective date in advance of any determinations of clearing mandates.
     End-users won't have to clear swaps, but the banks they contract with for those swaps will have to clear them on a repository and report those swaps in real-time on some sort of public website that may be like the current TRACE website which investors can view to see current trades of corporate and municipal bonds. This second Title VII requirement will, however, affect end-users, but has pretty much been a forgotten provision during debate during the first half of 2011 over the margin requirements for swaps proposed by federal banking agencies. We have discussed these previously, and the issue here has diminished considerably.
      With concern over margin receding, reporting of swaps by banks in real-time, and its potential impact on end-users, comes to the fore. It will be a key focus of business groups between now and December 31 as the CFTC attempts to publish final rules. The proposed rule requires all trades, except those that qualify as block trades, to be reported on a real-time basis.  Certain larger trades could be reported 15 minutes later. The real-time reporting requirements – when applied to large trades that don’t qualify as blocks – don’t sit well with business end users. "We are concerned that proposed real-time reporting rules could inadvertently jeopardize end user’s ability to secure efficient market pricing in certain situations," says Luke Zubrod, Director at Chatham Financial and an advisor to the Coalition for Derivatives End-Users. "In particular, it is important that large or less liquid transactions be classified as block trades and that the public reporting of such transactions be adequately delayed. If reporting of these types of trades occurs instantaneously, it could provide a roadmap for other market participants to trade on that information – ultimately adversely impacting pricing." Zubrod wants the CFTC to delay reporting for 24 hours. In addition, Zubrod would like to see the CFTC expand the size of the block trading exemption so that a wider array of trades qualify, perhaps by applying block trade calculations to discrete products which would provide a more granular look at the market.

How are Health Care Organizations Saving on Their Prescription Costs?

 August 9, 2011...ASHHRA e-News Brief (American Society for Healthcare Human Resources Administration)

By Stephen Barlas

Bob Melendy, human capital services executive at Scripps Health in San Diego, could not believe what he had just learned. One of the hospital system's 13,000 employees, a member of Scripps’ self-insured health benefits plan, had been filling prescriptions for Factor 8 (an expensive hemophilia drug) at the outpatient pharmacy of another local hospital. That hospital was qualified under the federal government's 340B drug discount program and therefore able to buy Factor 8 at roughly half the average wholesale price. This in turn gave the hospital’s outpatient pharmacy a competitive advantage and significant revenue when it dispensed expensive drugs. Based on usual and customary reimbursement rates, the nearby hospital’s pharmacy was earning about $400,000 each year from this single patient, all paid by Scripps’ health plan. But the real "ah-ha moment" for Melendy came with the realization that two hospitals of Scripps’ five hospital campuses were also 340B eligible and could buy and dispense discounted 340B prescriptions as well.

"We should be keeping those savings," thought Melendy. But while two Scripps hospitals were 340B-eligible, neither had taken advantage of purchasing drugs at the 340B discount rate. Discounts can be 25 to 50 percent off the average wholesale price (AWP) of many drugs including those for treating cancer, arthritis, HIV/AIDS, and other serious conditions.

Back in 2006, when he first ran into the Factor 8 employee's prescription situation, Melendy was only vaguely aware of the 340B program and its possibilities. But after some initial research he quickly realized that if he could start capturing 340B savings for some of the 24,000 employee and family member participants in the Scripps health plan -- especially those with expensive prescriptions for chronic diseases -- he could significantly reduce the corporate health plan's outlays on drugs.

Today, five years later, after fits and starts, Scripps is saving about $400,000 a year with the 340B program; the money it saves remains in the plan in order to cushion premium increases for employees. "And we are just scratching the surface," adds Dayna Pearson, the company's health plan administrator.

About 14,000 hospitals and Federally Qualified Health Clinics (FQHCs) qualify for the 340B program, which Congress established in 1992. Recently, the Affordable Care Act extended eligibility to another 1,500 hospitals, most in low income areas. The savings and revenue they generate as a result of the 340B program is used to help offset the cost of services provided to the underinsured or uninsured population they serve.

However, the 340B program has been on the back-burner for most hospitals. Very few have taken advantage of 340B’s monumental cost savings potential since the program was established two decades ago, as was the case with Scripps in 2006. The underutilization is due in part to the program’s complexities, guidelines and limitations. For example, at the time Scripps began its program, qualified entities could only designate a single pharmacy to fill 340B prescriptions, either an in-house pharmacy or a contracted retail or mail order pharmacy. All inventory dispensed through the program had to be distinguished from other prescriptions filled by the pharmacy.

Once he learned the Scripps plan could save $400,000 on just one employee's annual prescriptions, Melendy was determined to figure out how he could start a 340B program for the plan’s 24,000 covered lives. But when he presented the business proposal, it became clear that the organization did not have even a basic understanding of 340B regulations. "Our legal team had never heard of this," remembers Melendy. "They thought it was too good to be true."

At that time, the pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) that administered the Scripps prescription program was also just coming up to speed on the implications of a 340B program for employees. Melendy was undeterred. He decided to go the mail order route because Scripps did not have an onsite pharmacy at either of its two 340B-eligible hospitals. He also began trying to align Scripps’ mail order pharmacy partner behind the program (unsuccessfully it turned out). At the same time he fulfilled another 340B requirement: setting up a 340B-eligible clinic at Scripps Mercy Hospital where employees would go for care.

Thus began the Scripps Health Plan Care Partner Program, which targets employees and dependents with high cost prescriptions. Employees enter the program with an initial visit and the creation of a medical record. In the early days, they would often arrive at the clinic with the Care Partner brochure in hand. It explained the benefits of the program, including things like co-pay waivers for office visits and prescriptions. Over the course of a year, the co-pay on one prescription can total as much as $1,200, and some employees use more than one maintenance medication. Not only did employees save money, they had continuity of care from a specialist who was, in most cases, a Scripps affiliated physician. A

After getting started in 2007, the Care Partner Program moved forward slowly, weighed down by the lack of enthusiasm of its mail order partner and the need to research and comply with a complicated set of federal regulations. So in 2009, Scripps brought in Wellpartner, a Portland, Oregon, contract pharmacy administrator, to manage its 340B program. "At that time, there wasn't any other pharmacy administrator other than Wellpartner who knew how to structure a 340B program, whether for a hospital's employee plan or for patients of the hospital," explains Corey Belken, a managing consultant at The Burchfield Group, Inc., which was helping Scripps navigate pharmaceutical industry contracts. "Wellpartner was dominant because they were innovative enough to define and start serving this market."

Wellpartner is responsible for administering the Scripps 340B program and for filling qualified prescriptions through its mail order pharmacy. Wellpartner handles all the inventory and payment administration necessary to meet Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) and drug manufacturer audit requirements. According to Melendy, Scripps could have undertaken this work itself. But given staffing limitations and lack of internal expertise, this would have been extremely difficult, so it was much better to work with a recognized leader in this highly specialized field.

Today, the Scripps corporate health plan enjoys significant savings from the Care Partner Program. Between June 2010 and May 2011, Scripps employees filled 1,507 prescriptions at 340B prices, the total cost of which would have been approximately $840,000 without the 340B discounts. But Scripps paid only $418,000, saving $423,000 (and that number would have been considerably higher had not the employee with the Factor 8 prescription left the company).

Scripps Care Partner has gained popularity among employees because of the waived co-pays and other benefits of using the program -- so much so that Scripps hired a pharmacist at the Scripps Mercy clinic whose fulltime job is to consult with employees who want to enroll. One indication of the program's increasing attraction is that the number of 340B prescriptions filled in March 2011 was 80 percent more than the previous year.

The 1,507 eligible 340B prescriptions are a tiny percentage of the 230,000 total filled by all 24,000 Scripps Health Plan members over a 12-month period. Those prescriptions cost the plan about $12 million last year. Not all employees are participating in the Care Partner Program, nor does Melendy expect the number to ever approach 100 percent. But if only 10 percent of the total prescriptions covered by the plan were filled through the Care Partner, the savings to Scripps would increase geometrically as the downward pressure on employee health premium increases.

Pearson says that at an open enrollment benefit fair in 2010 at Torrey Pines, one employee told her that "the amount of money we have saved, thanks to my family member being enrolled in the Care Partner Program, has made a big difference in our lives."

Mr. Barlas, a freelance writer based in Washington, D.C., covers issues inside the Beltway.

Disclosure. The author reports that he has received financial compensation from WellPartner, Inc., for writing this article.

Nailing Down Grid Cyber Security

EnergyBiz Magazine...July/August 2011

     The Obama administration's economy-wide cyber security plan presented by the White House in May makes it much more likely that the holes in existing electric utility cyber defense plans will be plugged sooner rather than later.

     Legislation passed in 2005 gave the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) the responsibility for overseeing cyber security defenses for transmission and generation companies, the only companies for whom there is a national legislative mandate. But recent federal reports have underlined the swiss cheese nature of the standards published by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), who FERC designated to produce standards aimed at guarding against computer virus attacks on critical assets.
      The Obama legislative initiative would extend the federal mandatory cyber attack umbrella to the steel, chemical and other industries. Sens. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairman and ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, held hearings on May 5 on a draft bill which would strengthen the original 2005 electric utility provisions; that bill, some of whose provisions are opposed by the industry, would become amendments to a broader bill, based on the Obama initiative, expected to be shepherded through the Senate by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W. Va.), chairman of the Commerce Committee.
      The 2005 Energy Policy Act gave FERC authority to designate a private sector group to establish standards for the "bulk power system," which excludes local distribution companies and transmission facilities in Hawaii and Alaska. The FERC designated the NERC as that standards setter. FERC has the authority to review NERC standards, and ask for revisions.
      But since August 2006, when NERC submitted its first eight proposed cyber security standards, FERC has repeated directed NERC to fill gaping holes in those standards, which have also been the subject of criticism from the Inspector General at the Department of Energy and the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Joseph McClelland, director, office of electric reliability at FERC, told the Senate Energy Committee on May 5 that the majority of FERC modifications have not been incorporated into the NERC standards. "Until they are addressed, there are significant gaps in protection such as a needed requirement for a defense in depth posture," McClelland stated.
      In a January 2011 report, the DOE IG implied that FERC was to blame for not pressing NERC harder and faster. "Although the Commission had taken steps to ensure cyber security standards were developed and approved, our testing revealed that such standards did not always include controls commonly recommended for protecting critical information systems," the report stated. "In addition, the standards implementation approach and schedule approved by the Commission were not adequate to ensure that systems-related risks to the nation's power grid were mitigated or addressed in a timely manner."
     The Bingaman/Murkowski draft bill would allow FERC to issue an interim final rule establishing electric reliability standards if it felt NERC had failed to do so, and FERC could do that without the prior notice and public comment period that traditionally accompany federal rulemaking, and issue that IFR with less than 30 days notice. In the event of an emergency cyber threat, the secretary of the department of energy could issue an emergency order forcing the power industry to take certain steps to protect critical electric infrastructure. The order would be effective for 90 days initially and could be extended if public hearings were held. Companies could recover reasonable costs from complying with that emergency order from rate payers.
     David K. Owens, executive vice president, business operations, Edison Electric Institute, says any new authority given to FERC or the DOE should be limited to truly critical assets. "Over-inclusion of electric utility infrastructure would be counterproductive," he explained at the hearings.. Critics of NERC's standards say they only cover a limited number of generation and transmission assets. The DOE IG report said: "Even though critical assets could include such things as control centers, transmission substations, and generation resources, the former NERC Chief Security Officer noted in April 2009, that only 29 percent of generation owners and operators, and less than 63 percent of transmission owners identified at least one critical asset on a self-certification compliance survey."
    Owens adds that any new DOE emergency authority "should be limited to true emergency
situations involving imminent cyber security threats where there is a significant declared national
security or public welfare concern." The draft legislation is much broader; it doesn't mention that there needs to be an "imminent threat," for example.  On the FERC interim final rule authority, he notes, "we are concerned about the lack of due process for stakeholder input.