Copyright

(c) 2010-2024 Jon L Gelman, All Rights Reserved.
Showing posts with label Independent Medical Review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Independent Medical Review. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 17, 2016

The State of Medical Care in California’s Workers’ Compensation System

Katherine Roe

Todays' guest post is authored by Katie Roe*  of the California Bar and was originally published at rivercityattorneys.com/blog (Fraulob & Brown).

When you’re injured at work, you expect that your employer’s insurance carrier will dutifully provide you with proper medical treatment for your injury. After all, future medical care is one of the “benefits” injured workers are entitled to in California. Denial of medical treatment is the number one frustration we hear from our clients on a daily basis.

What injured workers quickly discover is that their medical treatment is strictly controlled by the insurance carrier and their medical fate is in the hands of a doctor who has never treated them and may not even have their complete medical records. This process is called Utilization Review (UR). Under UR an outside physician gets to decide whether or not the insurance company should authorize the medical treatment prescribed by your primary treating physician. This doctor doesn’t even have to be licensed in California.

If the medical treatment prescribed by your physician is denied, your only recourse is to appeal the decision to an Independent Medical Reviewed (IMR). In California, MAXIMUS is the company contracted to conduct IMR reviews. Like UR doctors, the IMR doctor deciding your fate, has never met you or treated you and does not need to be licensed in California. In fact, their identity is protected. If your medical treatment is denied by UR, your chances of IMR overturning the decision are not good. California Workers’ Compensation Institute, an insurance research group, found that 91% of IMR decisions uphold the UR denial. If the treatment is denied by IMR, absent a change in circumstances, the denial will be in effect for one year.

While an injured worker has the right to appeal an IMR determination to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, the only legal bases on which to appeal are fraud, conflict of interest, or mistake of fact. However, even if your appeal is successful the WCAB still cannot overturn the IMR doctor’s decision. If an appeal is granted, the remedy is referral to a different IMR for another review. Yes, you read that right, your award is to go through the IMR process again!

Many injured workers end up seeking treatment for their work related injuries through private insurance, Medicare or Medi-Cal. A study by J. Paul Leigh, a health economist at the University of California, Davis, estimated that only 1/3 of necessary medical treatment and lost wages is being paid for by workers’ compensation insurers.

The lack of adequate medical care for injured workers today is the result of Senate Bill 863, which was passed on August 1, 2012 and signed into law by Governor Brown on September 18, 2012. This law was the result of lobbying by big businesses and insurance companies, who have influence over the State Legislature and the Governor of California. We remind our clients that you also have a political voice. We recommend you go to Voters Injured at Work (www.viaw.org) for information on how to become involved with fixing this broken system.

To read more about the dismal state of medical treatment for injured workers all over America I encourage you to read Insult to Injury by Michael Grabell athttps://www.propublica.org/article/the-demolition-of-workers-compensation.

*Katherine Roe is originally from the San Francisco Bay Area. She attended University of St. Thomas, Saint Paul Minnesota for her undergraduate degree in Sociology with a minor in Criminal Justice. She earned her Master in Public Administration from University of Notre Dame de Namur, Belmont, CA. Katie graduated from University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento where she received the Witkin Award for Health Law and Elder Law Clinic. She is a practicing attorney in the areas of Workers’ Compensation Law, Social Security Disability and Elder Law, including estate planning with wills, trusts, deeds, powers of attorney and health care directives.
While in college, Katie tutored grade school and high school students in low-income neighborhoods in Saint Paul and Minneapolis, MN and interned with the Oakdale, MN Police Department.
During law school, Katie interned with Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County, Human Rights Fair Housing Commission and the California Department of Insurance. While at McGeorge, she worked in the Elder and Health Law Clinic where she handled Medicare appeals, elder abuse cases, restraining orders, wills, trusts, consumer protection, special needs trusts, and powers of attorney.
While the Clinical Fellow at McGeorge she received the Cohn Sisters’ Scholarship for Patient Advocacy.

Thursday, August 7, 2014

ROTTEN IN DENMARK

Today's post was shared by Julius Young and comes from www.workerscompzone.com

July 29 2014
You might have thought that news of bad behavior in California’s workers’ comp system was hitting bottom.
After all, could it get worse? Allegations of legislators taking money to help charlatans who profited off of the backs of injured workers (literally). Scads of doctors alleged to have taken kickbacks for prescribing questionable compound medicines one of which allegedly killed a baby.
It appears that law enforcement authorities are now focusing on relationships between some applicant attorney firms and medical groups.
In Southern California the Riverside County DA has executed a search warrant against a workers’ comp firm, California Injury Lawyers (CIL). Apparently this is a result of a long investigation into suspected workers’ comp fraud,  targeting operations allegedly connected to an individual named Peyman Heidary who is said to have a financial interest in as many as nine medical clinics in the Los Angeles area.
The details of the alleged bad behavior or fraud is unclear, and it must be noted that any allegations are currently just that, allegations.
But this case has the potential to involve a number of  Southern California health care providers as well as some lawyers.
Meanwhile, last year’s workers’ comp bill AB 1309 seems to be the focus of new allegations in the federal case against State Senator Leland Yee. A grand jury indictment contains allegations that Yee suggested that in...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Saturday, July 19, 2014

California Dreamer: Recent Reform Too Good To Be True

California IMR-Source: CA DIR (7-2014)
Reading it is one thing, and believing it is another. As lawyers we all know that there are at least 2 sides to every story.

This week the California Division of Industrial Relations (CA DIR) published a report of the implementation status of recent workers' compensation reform legislation commonly referred to as SB 863 (2012 enactment).

The report concludes that it is still too early to determine whether or not the legislation produced a positive impact on the system. If delay and denial of benefits is what was intended, then from what has been heard on The Street, the legislation is a win.

Basically, the latest round of reform, crafted with very little public input and enacted in "the dead of night," was intended to curb and contain costs. The "innovative process" to limit escalating medical costs, probably the largest ticket item in the entire package, was to be limited going forward through a process termed Independent Medical Review (IMR). A theoretically system that removes the medical delivery decision from the adversary system, ie. get rid of the lawyers approach.

While it sounded great on paper, the process turned out to be a constitutionally challenged nightmare that ultimately delayed and denied benefits and added insult to injury for disabled workers. Employers and carriers started to challenge everything. No one wanted to take responsibility for medical care and the system suffered from compounding delay as everything seemed to be tossed in the IMR bucket.

California is particularly important as a model for workers' compensation.  It is a national testing ground for innovation. It is a very large and extremely complex system, where even the exceptions to the rule have multiple exceptions. Luckily the California workers' compensation bar  is well organized, educated, knowledgeable and skilled. Unfortunately, the numbers of expert workers' compensation lawyers continues to become fewer as firms backout of the system for lack of economic incentive to participate.

The CA DIR report released this week basically answers nothing about whether the system improved since the SB 863 was enacted. A few charts loaded with caveats only reflect a statistical vision of political hope for improvement that is diluted with a conclusion that it is too soon to tell if it is really working as promised.

The "promise" made by Industry to Labor in 1911 for system of remedial social legislation, ie. workers' compensation, seems broken. Recognizably the cycle after cycle in California of repeated efforts to readjust the system through major systemic efforts continue to compound failures.

It is far time that California stopped dreaming about improvements that appear too good to be true and start thinking creatively on how to craft an innovative system that meets the needs of ALL the stakeholders.

….

Jon L. Gelman of Wayne NJ is the author of NJ Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson-Reuters) and co-author of the national treatise, Modern Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson-Reuters). For over 4 decades the Law Offices of Jon L Gelman  1.973.696.7900  jon@gelmans.com  have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational accidents and illnesses.

Friday, July 18, 2014

TOP 10 EVENTS IN CALIFORNIA WORKERS’ COMP 1ST HALF 2014

Today's post was shared by Julius Young and comes from www.workerscompzone.com

2014 is half done. What were the most significant events/themes in California workers’ comp in the first half of 2014?
Here, in no particular order, are my top picks:

1. CONTROVERSY OVER UTILIZATION REVIEW AND INDEPENDENT MEDICAL REVIEW CONTINUES

Utilization review and independent medical review continued to generate controversy during the first half of 2014. California injured workers, doctors, and applicant attorneys complained that it was increasingly hard to get consistent treatment for work injuries, as many adjusters used utilization review to deny treatments. Prominent attorney advocates called for reform of utilization review statutes and regulations.

However, there were disputes about the raw numbers. A January 2014 study by CWCI (the California Workers’ Comp Institute) (http://cwci.org/research.html) claimed that only about 4.7% of treatment requests are ultimately denied or modified.

According to the CWCI around 75% of treatment requests were approved without being sent to UR (“elevated review”). These numbers were in line with a 2011 study done by RAND. In response, a January 2014 analysis )of 2013 sample UR audit data prepared by CAAA consultant Mark Gerlach documented that some insurers were denying as much as two of every three treatment requests. Reviewing audit data, Gerlach noted that there was a wide range in approval rates of different claims administrators.

Overall,...


[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Saturday, June 14, 2014

Troubled


Historically California with its huge share of the nation's workers' compensaton market defines the future course of regulation and reform. The analysis offered by David DePaolo is indeed troubling. Today's post is shared from http://daviddepaolo.blogspot.com

The message I heard at the California Workers' Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau's Annual Meeting yesterday in San Francisco was a mixed one, but my ultimate conclusion isn't positive.

The bottom line - frictional costs associated with the most recent reform effort seem to have introduced more frictional costs than savings, and the likelihood is that when Oregon does it's rate normalized bi-annual survey, California may just come out on top as the most expensive state with a troublesome delivery history and questionable profitability for carriers.

Ugh...

Here's a sort of good news, bad news synopsis, not necessarily in any particular order:

While there has been a dramatic reduction in claim frequency (fancy insurance-speak for the number of injuries per given period), down some 80% over the past 40 years, California has seen frequency level off and even grow a small percentage where the rest of the nation continues to experience continuing declines. It seems that this frequency deviation is attributable to the Greater Los Angeles area - a geographic bubble driving the state's negative claims picture.

It seems that the frequency trend in indemnity claims in the LA area is attributable to continuous trauma...

[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Monday, May 19, 2014

California’s Independent Medical Review System Unreasonably Denies Injured Workers Benefits

A California Appellate review panel recently decided that insurance companies and employers had acted in bad faith in applying provisions of the statute concerning Independent Medical Reviews. An injured worker had been denied pain relief medication contrary to the law.

In article published by lexisnexis.com a leading California Workers’ Compensation attorney, past president of the California Applicants Attorneys Association, and author, Melissa C. Brown, Esq.,
discusses Adel Salem v Riverside County WCAB CA.


“Once again, the WCAB gets it,” says Melissa C. Brown, of Fraulob, Brown, Gowen & Snapp, PLC. “Medical treatment denials that ignore the injured worker’s medical condition as a whole are not issued in good faith.” But Brown believes what Adel Salem suffered in this case would not be remedied by the “watered down” penalty provisions of Labor Code Section 5814, and that “the penalty is no deterrent; it is too little, too late.” Brown explains that the UR denial that occurred in Salem happens hundreds of times a week. “They are SOP,” says Brown. “Insurance companies and self-insured employers would rather pay UR companies and Maximus than follow common sense policies which leave routine and ongoing medical treatment decisions to treating doctors, most of whom are in their own MPNs.” In her opinion, Salem showcases the wholesale erosion of basic benefits to injured workers. “Thousands of workers are seeing their long term and effective treatment regimens terminated with no right to judicial review on the merits,” according to Brown.

Saturday, January 11, 2014

DWC's IMR Meetings Premature

The noise over the volume of Independent Medical Review requests and Maximus' inability to cope with that volume is at top level and the California Workers' Compensation Institute's latest research paper is certainly going to add to the fury.

The Division of Workers' Compensation has scheduled round table meetings with interested groups for Monday and Tuesday. CWCI's release couldn't be more timely.

CWCI says that basically IMR (and underlying Utilization Review) are working as intended.

The say that only 5.9% of requested medical procedures are delayed, denied or modified through utilization review, and that three out of every four medical treatment requests are approved by claims adjusters without the need for additional oversight.

Moreover, CWCI found 76.6% of the 919,370 treatment requests it evaluated that were sent out for physician review were approved, 6.6% were modified and 16.9% were denied.

One-in-four treatment requests being sent for physician review and one-in-four of those physician-reviewed requests denying or modifying the recommendation means that 94.1% of treatments are approved and 5.9% are denied.

CWCI also reviewed 1,141 independent medical-review decisions that had been issued as of Jan. 2 and found 78.9% of denials are upheld by the administrative review and 21.1% are overturned.

Of the 919,370 medical treatment requests reviewed by CWCi researchers, "pharmacy" garnered fully 43% of all events - this is an astounding number and debunks quite a...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Saturday, December 14, 2013

IMR: DWC Get Out of the Way

Today's post was shared by WorkCompCentral and comes from daviddepaolo.blogspot.com

What is the purpose of California's Independent Medical Review?

I have to ask myself this question in light of the most recent proposed changes to Utilization Review/IMR rules published by the Division of Workers' Compensation (a whopping 75 pages long, albeit inclusive of all changes since origin).

What causes me to pause is that the new amendments would allow a medical reviewer to, “issue a determination as to whether the disputed medical treatment is medically necessary based on both a summary of medical records listed in the utilization review determination,” and additional documents submitted by the employee or requesting physician.

In addition, the latest amendments reverse the order in which documentation is mandated - prior versions of the regulations said the claims administrator shall provide the documents. This version provides that the IMR entity shall RECEIVE documents. I don't know why this was done, but to me it seems bass-ackwards.

Finally the pending amendments would allow the DWC administrative director to determine that an IMR decision is not valid because the case should not have been deemed eligible for review in the first place. The rules would say the director can vacate an IMR determination at any point unless an appeal has been filed with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board or the time to file an appeal has expired.

IMR was statutorily authorized by Labor Code section 4610.5, added via SB 863.

LC 4610.5 provides a list of the documents...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Tuesday, October 1, 2013

IMR: What Was The California Legislature Thinking?

Today's post is authored by David DePaolo, a national leading commentator on workers' compensation with special expertise in the California system, and shared from http://daviddepaolo.blogspot.com. The Independent Medical Review system was theoretically contrived to contain cost and make the California system friendlier and more expeditious. Quickly enacted, without full debate and comments from stakeholders, the system has become stymied and yet another hurtle in the system. Read David' thoughtful analysis.......

The debate about the big volume of Independent Medical Review requests in California's new system that were recently reported is all over the map.

Some say that the provider, Maximus, is at fault and many support the Division of Workers' Compensation's proposal for new time lines and penalties for various actions and/or inactions.
There's also plenty of blame slinging going on with employer representatives accusing the applicant attorneys, applicant attorneys implicating carriers/administrators, and everyone else pointing fingers at each other.

But Steven Cardinale, co-founder and Managing Director of CID Management, a Utilization Review company, put it best to me in an email when he said, "SB 863 was conceived in such a way as to assure the overuse of IMR."

I have to agree with Mr. Cardinale - none of the participants in the California system is really to blame for the huge volume going to IMR because the law essentially guaranteed that this would...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]