Injured Workers Lose Again

Ordinarily, California's  injured workers have issues to worry about other than how doctors do their billings. Not so anymore. Here's why: the change over from the Official Medical Fee Schedule (OMFS) to the RBRVS system has come with severe restrictions against injured workers and their doctors. Even though the OMFS paid near the lowest in the nation, insurance companies weren't satisfied. Here's an example: under the OMFS consulting doctors were allowed to bill for review of medical records. Such reviews often entail studying boxes filled to the brim with medical records. These cases are often complicated by divergent opinions from treating doctors, utilization review denials by doctors, many of whom are unlicensed in California, and by doctors who haven't reviewed the patient's complete medical file. Sometimes the shear complexity of injured workers' injuries is overwhelming, e.g,  as when multiple injuries occur, for instance, a fall from a ladder causing broken arms or legs,  neck or back injury, and a head injury.

Treating doctors and consultants often spend extended amounts of time on such cases. Hours just to review medical records is common and until adoption of the new billing codes was compensated under Code 99358. That code has now been eliminated. The next step for the doctor would be to file an independent report for which the code was 99080. That code has also been eliminated even though such reports quite commonly would be around 20 typed pages and would also have required lengthy preparation.

As a further slap in the face, the actual consultation codes, e.g., 99245, have also been eliminated and have been replaced by RBRVS codes based on Medicare that cost the insurance companies less despite a minimal increase in Medicare.  In a nutshell, consultation for and treatment of complicated injuries has become so prohibitive that primary treating doctors can often not get either. Recently, this writer had a case turned down by a teaching hospital: we were told outright that they don't accept workers' comp cases anymore (i.e., their reimbursement level was cut below the minimum standard the hospital felt it could live with).

A few years ago, when an attempt was being made to push SB 923 (Deleon)  through the legislature, Stuart Bussey, MD, JD, family practice specialist and President of the Union of American Physicians and Dentists, Local 206 of  the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), AFL-CIO, testified that passage of the bill could tie his hands when specialty consultations were needed but were also unavailable. He said that this situation could leave him holding the malpractice bag. The bill crashed but some of its odious provisions were resurrected in SB 863 which is now the law and which mandates replacement of the OMFS by the RBRVS.

Here's the rub: the deletion of the 99358 code for review of medical  records means that many specialists will be unable to review cases as they should. The deletion of the 99080 code means that consultants, if and when they can be obtained,  will not be able to file comprehensive reports for  their patients. It means that Independent Medical Review (IMR) doctors may be much more likely to make decisions (75% of which deny care) without reviewing medical facts.

The billing code changes are a boon for insurance companies because it lowers their administrative expenses. It will also lower actual medical and surgical costs since absent these consultations and reports definitive medical and surgical steps will not be implemented. In chronic pain patients, for instance, it's likely to decrease physicians' treatment options. In this way chronic pain patients may end up on chronic opioids longer than would otherwise be necessary.  It's a chilling thought when this example is extended to other diagnoses requiring complicated orthopedic, neurosurgical, and psychiatric care.

As a result of SB 863, Independent Medical Review (IMR) Physicians will review the necessity of care after Utilization Review (UR) doctors have first had their shot. Readers of this column know that in an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle, 8/29/08, entitled "How to practice medicine without a license," it was pointed out that UR doctors don't have to be licensed in California (union leaders should be interested in knowing that AFSCME, at its International  Convention in Chicago in 2006, passed a resolution against this practice). 

Upshot: not only does the UR physician not have to interview or examine the injured worker, the UR doc does not even have to be licensed in California, the state in which he practices. Errors the non-California-licensed UR physician make cannot be evaluated by the California Medical Board. Alleged errors cannot be evaluated by the medical board of the state in which the UR physician is licensed, either, because the out-of-state board doesn't have jurisdiction in California.

All  of this largesse is now extended to the IMR physicians thanks to SB 863. The position of the insurance industry is now buttressed by the deletion of codes 99245, 99358, and 99080. Once again the injured worker takes it in the teeth. Nothing new in that, is there? It's just another injury to the already injured worker.

We recommend repeal of SB 863 and support for SB 626 (Beall) or similar legislation since Senator Beall pulled SB 626  in 2013.

 

SB 491 (Hernandez) Gets Stopped  in  Assembly Committee on Business Professions and Consumer Protection

A united coalition including the California Medical Association (CMA), the Union of American Physicians and Dentists (Local 206 of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO),  the California Society of Physical Medicine and Surgery (CSPM&R),  the California Neurology Society (CNS), and several others helped to convince the committee that allowing healthcare professionals, no matter how well intentioned, to practice beyond their levels of education and training was unwise and a recipe for disaster. Accordingly,  SB 491 failed today to clear the Assembly Committee on Business Professions and Consumer Protection. The name of the game was consumer protection.

In one of our previous blogs we pointed out that nurses and/or nurse practitioners (NPs), once enfranchised to practice medicine without physician supervision, already well disciplined and organized into a proper union would be well poised to negotiate for equal pay. It was not expected that the newly enfranchised nurses would rush to the hinterlands of California where medical back-up in the form of well trained physicians and surgeons would be lacking or that the nurses would rush to places where resources and money were scarce.

One should not expect the nurses to quit this quest. A new campaign should be expected as soon as the old wounds have healed and their  regenerative powers have been regained.

References and a footnote

"SB 491 (Hernandez) clears committee," www.politicsofhealthcare.com, 5/17/13

"If the work is equal, shouldn't the pay be equal?" www.politicsofhealthcare.com, 4/26/13

"No, no, no on SB 491, 492,  493," www.politicsofhealthcare.com, 4/18/13

Footnote: notice that in this instance an AFL-CIO union was on the same side as the CMA  and other traditional physician organizations -- editor.



 

NO, NO, NO ON SB 491, 492, AND 493!

Do we as citizens agree to reduce the level of education and training of our physicians while increasing the number of healthcare providers by expanding the healthcare pool to include nurses and others? Some say the Hernandez Trio, SB 491, 492, and 493 would do just that. The critical question is whether so doing  would be advantageous or detrimental to the provision of healthcare generally.

SB 491 would let Nurse Practitioners (NPs) practice medicine on their own, just as physicians do. The argument for so doing is that there is a dearth of physicians especially in rural areas that NPs could fill.
The counter argument is that physicians are better educated and trained in terms of diagnostics, differential diagnosis, and therapeutics, that is, how to distinguish what may seem to be an inocuous illness as opposed to the harbinger of a medical catastrophe. The issue is whether or not the exchange is worth the candle. The probable result of passage of SB 491 is that NPs, once licensed, will skedaddle from rural practice as fast as their physician colleagues and will set up shop where the money is and compete with their more advanced and more highly trained counterparts. THAT'S the underlying issue. The rest is window-dressing.

SB 492 would allow optometrists to act as ophthalmologists without the pesky interval of real honest-to-gosh medical education and training. Under SB 492 optometrists would be allowed to administer and prescribe drugs including controlled substances. Never mind that right now at the same time various task forces are trying to make it increasingly difficult even for well trained physicians to prescribe narcotics. SB 492 implies that full blown medical education is not necessary for safe ophthalmology practice. If one believes that then SB 492 isn't a problem.

SB 493 would allow pharmacists to dispense medications. In some cases, as when a renewal isn't attended to promptly by a physician, pharmacists already do just that. Their argument is that their training in pharmacology is actually more than most physicians get. On the other hand, conveniently ignored is that pharmacists aren't educated or trained in physical diagnosis and often are not equipped to deal with the adverse consequences of medications. The upshot is that they may prescribe and leave it to some physician somewhere to deal with the complications.

Commentary

"Nurse practitioners battle for right to treat patients" is the title of a piece by Shannon Pettypiece, Bloomberg Businessweek reporter. She describes the predicament of Christy Blanco, Nurse Practitioner in El Paso, who has a doctorate degree in nursing practice. Blanco asserts competence in treating diabetes, asthma, high blood pressure, and other conditions. Blanco's problem is that in Texas she is required to contract with a doctor to sign off on medical charts. By contrast no such requirement  exists in New Mexico so Blanco is considering moving there. In her suboptimally used El Paso office she states she is "spending money and making no profit." Ruefully, she adds, "it is a business."

Yessirree, "it is a business," one that has been learned by managed care organizations and corporate American generally and is about to be upgraded by Accountable Care Organizations and pharmacies that are opening their own clinics to be staffed by nurse practitioners and, maybe, even by some physicians (we don't say "even by some doctors" since in due course the NPs will have doctorate degrees in nursing practice).

Competition is not precluded by Hernandez' three bills. Physicians usually leave Nursing Plans in the hands of nurses. They're not required by law to do so. So if competition is the name of the game, one possibility is for physicians to add nursing practice to their own armamentaria. So doing makes more sense than trying to maintain the status quo. We can expect that universities, ever on the prowl for profitability, just like corporate America anywhere, will hire physicians to teach the nurses and then award them "Equivalency Certifications" suitable for framing and display. Physicians can also construct practices entitled to collective bargaining so they can be on equal footing with the nurses who've developed significant enough clout to be direct members of the AFL-CIO (meanwhile, not far behind, is the Union of American Physicians and Dentists, otherwise known as the UAPD or Local 206 of AFSCME, the largest union within the AFL-CIO).

A little known fact, recently revealed by Stuart Bussey, MD, JD, president of the UAPD is that in 2012 the doctors' union was obliged to negotiate with San Francisco County to raise the salaries of the doctors to equal the salaries of the FNPs. The predicament was a kudo for union power on both sides. Unfortunately for the doctors, their preferred professional associations and societies are not unions and are not allowed to negotiate collectively. The nurses don't suffer from this form of erudite elitism.

Professional education has always been considered the democratic equivalent of royal titledom.  We defer to titles, e.g., "doctor. " The nurses' and optometrists' answer is to upgrade alternative forms of education so that the "doctor" title can be bestowed.  Pushing the fact that the higher education and training that physicians get has intrinisic worth is held to be an elitist argument. The answer is to downgrade elitisim. That's where we're headed: less education, less training, equivalency certification, upgraded titles, and a race to the bottom where money lies in tempting repose.

The Affordable Care Act is supposed to upgrade healthcare for all. The expanded application of SB 491, 492, and 493 will downgrade healthcare for all but will expand access to some form of care. This triumverate of bills allows otherwise well trained professionals to work beyond their levels of training. We anticipate in the long run malpractice premiums will increase to accommodate the addition of suboptimally trained new professionals. We recommend a no vote on SBs 491, 492, and 493.

SB 626 (Beall) Tackles SB 863 (DeLeon)

Scaramento Shenanigans : SB 626 (Beall) versus SB 863 (deLeon)

(as of Tax Day, 15 April 2013)

Senate Bill 626 (Beall) is to be heard on April 24th by the Senate Labor and Industrial Relations Committee chaired by the Hon. Ted Lieu. We recommend support.

SB 626 (Beall)  is prompted by the passage and implementation of SB 863 (deLeon) from last year. SB 863,  woefully tilted to insurance company interests,  at first seemed unlikely to be taken seriously. Nonetheless,  buttressed by the insurance industry, SB 863 made it across the finish line. Purporting to act in support of the employer community,  SB 863 last year was rescued by the personal intervention of Governor Brown. Showing both political mastery and subservience to insurance company interests, Brown single-handedly rescued it with one day to go in the legislative year.  SB 626 would reverse much of SB 863. Here's why:

Secrecy in Peer Review for IMR reviewiers

Flying in the face of pleas for transparency, SB 863 provides secrecy for Independent Medical Review (IMR) doctors, hand-picked in part because they're expected to serve the overall interests of the insurance companies. To make sure that wrongful twists and turns IMR docs take that buttress insurance company interests aren't investigated by the Medical Board of California (MBC)  these doctors don't have to be licensed in California. They're exempt from the surveillance of the MBC. In addition, their names are not to be released -- students of history know about the notorious "lettres de cachet" that the French nobility used before the 1789 revolution to imprison political opponents.  SB 626 cancels this unwarranted immunity and subjects IMR doctors to the same discipline as doctors licensed in California.

The argument in favor of secrecy has usually been that the insurance companies can't find enough licensed California doctors to do the job. It was conveniently ignored when this argument previously arose that EK Health had so many applicants for utilization review jobs that the company had to create a waiting list.  It was also argued that similar secrecy provisions were already in place for private insurance. This argument is flat out false. Private insurers do not use  a "lettres de cachet" system. The names of their reviewers are made known. It also turns out that the vast majority of injured workers get treatment through their Medical Provider Networks (MPNs). In these cases, where the treatment of an MPN doctor is surveyed, the IMR reviewer's name is not kept secret. The inequity of these comparisons show why the IMR secrecy imposed by SB 863 should be obliterated.

Secrecy in Utilization Review (UR) 

This issue was reviewed by the Office of Administrative Law in 2006 (I submitted a written protest then on behalf of  the Union of American Physicians and Dentists). In general, the careless wording of the law, approved by legislators whose attention to detail should have been better, did not specify licensure in California as a necessary requirement to doing Utilization Review in California. All the law requires is that the UR doctors be "competent to evaluate the specific clinical issues" of the case at hand. In many cases there is debate about this very point, but there is no debate at all about the requirement to be licensed in California -- the latter is simply not required even though the MBC itself has gone on record as saying such licensure should be required.

SB 626 would require California licensure of all doctors doing Utilization Review and/or Independent Medical Review for injured workers in California. 

In fact, the largest labor union in the AFL-CIO, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME),  voted unanimously for this position in 2006 at its International Convention in Chicago. All the same, California AFSCME supported SB 863 last year. We don't know at this writing where California AFSCME stands on SB 626 (yes, we've asked and await reply).

Economics: how California loses $10 million in taxable revenue

Most well respected insurance companies, State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) among them, want their Utilization Review doctors to be familiar with California law. In Texas, for instance, licensure is required for doctors who want to do utilization review there -- so we have an anomalous situation where doctors licensed in Texas are enabled to do UR in California without a California license whereas California-licensed doctors cannot do UR in Texas unless they also get licensed in Texas. California loses about $10 million annual revenue by allowing UR to be farmed out to non-California doctors in other states. The job-killer here is the legislaure which has found a way in a cash-strapped state to ship $10 million in annual revenue to other states.

The March of the Lawyers

The legal issue is to what extent it is or is not proper to eliminate the WCAB (Workers Comp Appeals Board) from overturning decisions. SB 863 butted its way into this controversy by prohibiting workers comp judges and the WCAB itself from adjudicating disputed issue of medical necessity. This contrivance of law then freed the IMR reviewers from their last constrant -- under present law, SB 863 having been signed into law, IMR reviewers may have their names kept secret, need not be licensed in the state where they practice, and need not worry about having egregiously wrong and harmful decisions overturned by any court. That's because SB 863 limits appeals to fraud, conflict of interest,  bias, and mistake of fact -- not easy to determine if the reviewer is entitled to secrecy.

The legal question that arises is whether or not Article XIV, Section 4, California Constitution, has been violated. Here's part of what it says: "all decisions of any such tribunal shall be subject to review by the appellate courts of the state." SB 626 would make sure that it does.

Chiropractic prejudice?

Injured workers who choose chiropractic as their primary source of treatment run into downright prejudice. Doctors of chiropractic, just as doctors of medicine or dentists, are licensed medical providers.  But SB 863 makes sure that some providers are less equal than others by inserting and implementing a provision that limits chiropractors from serving as primary treating physicians (PTPs) after about 24 treatments. The chiropractic profession is rightfully outraged at this preclusion since it forces injured workers to seek out providers other than the ones they've already chosen and with whom they may be satisfied.  It's as though patient-staisfaction or injured-worker satisfaction doesn't  matter. Clearly, to the writers of SB 863, it didn't matter enough. 

Of interest to purveyors of evidence-based-medicine (EBM) is the origin of the limitation to 24 treatments, often also applied to physical therapists where the treatments may've been ordered by PTPs who are MDs or DOs. It appears that the number, 24, is arbitrary, not evidence-based. This arbitrary restriction deprives injured workers from access to their chosen method of treatment while also enhancing  corporate compensation

SB 626 will put a stop to this form of arbitary denial of access to care.

How about old fashioned prejudice against psychiatric disability?

Medical treatment for psychiatric injury has not been precluded by SB 863 although the significance of this level of injury has been diminished and downgraded by the perpetrators of SB 863. Here's how: SB 863 denies psychiatric-injured patients of indemnity benefits. The psychological harm derived from workplace injury is no longer included in the calculation of permanent disability payments.

SB 626 will make this unfair and ignorant preclusion null and void. Depression and other forms of psychiatric disability were given back-of-the-bus status by the perpetrators of SB 863.  SB 626 will put a stop to this arbitrary denial of reasonable permanent disability.

In future issues we'll discuss AB 670 (sponsored by the California Medical Association), opposition sought by the Union of American Physicians and Dentists to SBs 491, 492, and 493, and SB 809 (DeSaulnier) which would mandate that the Board of Pharmacy increase fees to wholesalers (the bill is known as CURES or Controlled Substances Utilization Review and Evaluation System).

As always, reader comments are welcome and anticipated.



   

OUT-OF-STATE VERSUS IN-STATE UTILIZATION REVIEW (UR)

UNDERSTANDING CALIFORNIA'S BIAS AGAINST INJURED WORKERS

David J. DePaolo says "I don't understand" in his article entitled "Out of State UR" dated January 4, 2013. I do understand. At the end of his article, DePaolo declares that "mandating that utilization review be conducted by physicians located in the state doesn't make any logical sense. I'm sure someone will try to enlighten me."  Who can resist such an invitation? Not me!

DePaolo states in his piece that "Dr. Robert L. Weinmann, of San Jose, Caif., an openly critical and long time advocate of requiring in-state residency for reviewing doctors in the California system argues that physicians who are not licensed in California will not be responsive to the needs of California residents." Well, DePaolo at least named the city correctly. The mistake is the assertion that I would require in-state residency. I have written in other articles and have testified in committee hearing that in-state residency need not be a requirement whereas in-state licensure should be. The Medical Board of California (MBC) agrees. In a letter dated 8/25/08, Richard Fanozzi, MD, board president, stated that the MBC supported a bill that "would require a physician who is conducting utilization review to be licensed in California" and that so doing "would provide increased consumer protection over decisions that do not have patients as its primary concern." This "increased  consumer protection" has been steadily and successfully opposed by the insurance industry.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), AFL-CIO, took a strong stand on this issue at its International Convention in Chicago in 2006.  In a resolution entitled "Unions fight to protect injured workers" it was resolved that "physicians working for utilization review companies reviewing the claims of injured workers be licensed in the states in which their decisions are used and where their decisions may influence the provision or denial of medical care to injured workers." Right on!

The California AFSCME nonetheless voted in favor of SB 863 which would appear to suggest a schism with the international's resolution adopted in 2006. SB 863 continues the anti-injured worker policy that so far has been  rescinded three times by the California legislature only to have two Governors veto the efforts (Schwarzenegger twice, Brown once, both times supported by the Chambers of Commerce and the insurance industry generally).

Now here's the rub which, I believe, Attorney David DePaolo understands: as matters stand now in California, Utilization Review (UR) doctors need not be licensed in California. In fact, SB 863 carries this laissez faire even further. It turns out that SB 863 mandates Independent Medical Review (IMR) doctors' names to be protected, that is, kept secret. IMR doctors will also not need to be licensed in California. Their protection under the new law goes even further: these doctors won't be able to be challenged for blatant stupidity, being flat out wrong, or for decisions harmful to patients. The only grounds for challenging the IMR doctors will be bias, fraud, or conflict of interest (it may be difficult to challenge someone for bias if one doesn't know his name).

DePaolo summarizes my main argument as follows: "Because reviewing doctors out of state can't be controlled by California licensing authorities, insurance companies are then free to 'scour the country' for doctors who are willing to give favorable reviews to the insurers, Weinmann told WorkCompCentral."

DePaolo argues that insurance companies don't have to "scour the country" because "there are plenty of in-state physicians who would be willing to opine such ... it doesn't matter where the doctor is located." If that is so we have to ask why in previous years the insurance industry has argued that there aren't enough doctors in California willing to do UR and that is why they've had to go out of state to recruit doctors to do UR. In any case, my opinion is that in-state licensure should be required, not in-state residency. In the meantime, we thank DePalo for his vote of confidence in California's doctors.

DePaolo admits that in Texas the utilization review doctors and their companies must be licensed in the state although "the companies and providers may be located outside of the state." What now propels this issue to the forefront once again is that Illinois recently passed utilization review legislation and is working on rules and regulations to implement the process. De Paolo referred to David Manchetti of Cullen, Haskins, and Menchetti in Chicago who stated that utilization review doctors "need to be familiar with how medicine is practiced in Illinois ... which may be different from how it's practiced in Indiana or India." The phrase, "how it's practiced," is the key to everybody's pending disaster. The point is that there are ways to diagnose and treat broken bones that are correct and that are incorrect. Our concern should be to promote the former, deny the latter, and make little or no allowance for whether or not we're talking about Illinois, Indiana, India, or California. But that's not how it works in practice. The truth is that some insurers are widely believed to "scour the country" for compliant and subservient doctors just as some applicants' attorneys are believed to seek out equally compliant doctors for their clients. The process has become increasingly adversarial with the passage of SB 863.

So here's the summary: as matters stand now, UR and IMR doctors need not  be licensed in California and need not be responsible to the Medical Board of California.  These doctors are also not subject to discipline by the medical boards of their own states for review decisions in California because those boards don't have jurisdiction in California.

Our position is that UR and IMR doctors should be licensed in the states where their decisions are used. Residency is not the issue. The issue is public responsibility through the state medical board. The letter from the MBC and the resolution by the International Convention of AFSCME got it right.

As it stands now, SB 863 promotes misguided public policy with reference to Utilization Review (UR) and Independent Medical Review (IMR). These aspects of the bill deserve to be challenged, revised, or repealed.  In-state licensure for doctors who do UR and IMR should be mandatory.

SB 863: A Political Tsunami in California

When Governor Brown declined to accept legislation that would have been a partial fix for workers' compensation at the end of 2011, he said he wanted an overall solution, not a piecemeal adjustment.

Among the politically savvy persons who heeded this admonition was Angie Wei, indefatigable chief lobbyist and legislative director for the California Labor Federation. Wei deftly developed her version of a comprehensive fix. What labor wanted most was an increase in permanent disability. Wei got that, or so it seemed, in the form of $740 million added to permanent disability. Speaking early on about SB 863, Wei said "there is no other path to getting $740 million back in benefits to injured workers. The legislature must pass SB 863." Wei, not exactly a friend of specialty medical  doctors, also protested against them when she complained that previous legislation caused medical treatment to be delayed because of "opposition from vendors who profit from the status quo."

SB 863 doesn't appear so far to be as good as its promise. Wei quickly understood that Governor Brown wanted a bipartisan bill, not one crafted only by the labor federation, and not one crafted entirely by insurance companies. Score one for Brown: he forced the two extremes to work together.

Grimmway Farms, Sean McNally, Vice President for corporate and Government Affairs,  soon became the chief player for business. No way Big Biz was going to let $740 million slip into Permanent Disability (PD) funding without getting something in return. Pouncing on some of the more abused parts of PD funding, Grimmway et al focussed on out-patient surgery centers, sleep impairments (dyssomnia), and sexual dysfunction (impaired sexual ability even when secondary to spinal injury). The open sesame to the assault on sex-and-sleep was the frequent inclusion of these complaints by applicants' attorneys into their legal pleadings. Deductions emerged:

*  Sleep impairment remains open for treatment but not for inclusion in permanent disability claims: this exclusion alone takes $40 million away from the PD pot.

*  Sexual impairment remains open for treatment but not for inclusion in permanent disability claims: this exclusion takes $10 million from the PD pot.

*  The big slam is the removal of $110 million for out-patient surgery centers.

*  All in all, current estimates are that of the $740 million Wei originally sought, about $200 million has already been lost thanks to the maneuvering of Grimmway which in this matter out-maneuvered Wei and Cal Fed.

* Two pro-injured workers bills bit the dust as SB 863 paddled furiously to victory: AB 369 (Huffman) and AB 1867 (Fong).  The fun-filled irony in the case of these two bills was that their authors voted in favor of SB 863 the passage of which was then used to tell authors Huffman and Fong that their bills were no longer needed.  Huffman's bill was designed to put a stop to step-therapy and was supported by Big Pharmacy, Pfizer, among others. Fong's bill would have required 12-point bold type on the first page of treatment authorization denial letters "so as to be prominently visible to the employee."
So step-therapy which prevents doctors from prescribing medications of choice is still the rule and so is keeping injured workers in the dark. The insurance companies wanted both bills defeated: they got their wish because Brown obliged and used SB 863 as the cudgel to do it. Score another for Brown, in fact, a double-score since he nailed both bills. The workers, ostensibly the constituents that Wei and Cal Fed wanted to serve, lost.

A big time score goes to Governor Brown because one day before passage of SB 863 when it looked as though the bill was going down to defeat Brown went to work in high gear and took up his own lobbying cudgel.  Effective lobbying from the California Society of Industrial Medicine and Surgery (CSIMS), directed by Carl Brakensiek and Steve Cattolica of AdvoCal, assisted by the California Society of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (CSPMR), the California Neurology Society (CNS), The California Chapter of the International Association of Rehabilitation Professionals, VQ OrthoCare, and the Californa Workers Compensation Services Association, almost defeated the bill despite abandonment of the California Medical Association (CMA) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) both of whom voted for passage of SB 863. CMA and AFSCME knuckled under to Brown.

The CMA is credited with getting the Medicare RBRVS modified and once that was done agreed to support the bill.  Consultations in workers' comp will be allowed although they're no longer allowed in standard Medicare. AFSCME which represents a few thousand doctors in California wanted to befriend Brown more than it wanted to support its dues-paying doctors and assumed that its doctor members wouldn't  protest with too much vigor.   AFSCME's political judgment so far has turned out to be correct.

When Brown saw that SB 863 was in trouble, he went to work. He lobbied and asserted the bill would "reduce litigation, claims administration costs, and other frictional costs." He personally lobbied for the bill,  actually, furiously in the last two days. His hard work paid off. Score a personal hard-earned political triumph for Governor Brown and chalk up a loss for a medical community that knows how to provide services but not how to persuade anybody that what we do is as worthwhile as we say.

Our opposing position was, and still is, that the bill strips injured workers of their ability to appeal wrongful decisions while also cutting the $740 million for PD by at least $200 million. What Brown calls "frictional costs" are actually the lifeblood costs that injured workers incur in appeals. Appeals for wrongful decisions to the WCAB are eliminated by SB 863 which creates an Independent Medical Review (IMR) process that'll rely on anonymous doctors whose decisions are nearly appeal-proof.

In fact, what Brown was really after all along was Proposition 30 to allow increased taxes. To get it he needed to take down the heat from Big Business. Brown  worked to get SB 863 passed to reduce the level of interest against Proposition 30. The strategy worked. The trouble now is the fiscal cliff which, if the country falls off it, will result in widespread financial hardship and will nullify much of what Proposition 30 just won.

Our focus now is on the Independent Medical Review system that has been designed to replace the current Utilization Review system. The IMR system retains the worst aspects of UR, i.e., no need to be licensed to practice medicine in California and no need to interview or examine the patients from  whom treatment opportunities may be withdrawn. The IMR method gets an additional advantage, namely, the promise of anonymity so that appeals against even the stupidest of judgments resulting in harmful denial of care will be turned away and will not be eligible for appeal to the WCAB.

Statewide implications

The move is on to  restrict access to medical care and shift the blame to doctors, particularly the conveniently convened IMR doctors. The name of the game is cost-reduction while touting improved quality of care. In California, access to the WCAB is being restricted; however, similar wrongful uses of denial-of-care are used by HMOs and in Knox-Keene plans. This accelerating trend deserves to be derailed.

Federal implications

The current IPAB derived from the ACA (Obamacare) also promotes cost conservation at the risk of harming patients. These techniques are being adopted by the ACOs even faster than they were by the HMOs. This trend also begs to be derailed.

SB 863: CREDITS AND KUDOS

SB 863 provided one of the most drama-laden lobbying and advocacy campaigns in years and ended in a personal victory for Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Because of intense work chiefly by the California Society of Industrial Medicine and Surgery (CSIMS), the bill was nearly defeated. On the Thursday before the end-of-session Friday, the Senate Democratic caucus opted for putting the vote off until next year's legislative session. That's when Governor Brown, backed into a corner, showed his teeth and claws. He got out of his comfortable gubernatorial chair and visited the senators in their own offices. He personally worked the bill. He didn't leave it to aides. The technique worked. We don't know about  all the promises he issued, but we do know that his persuasion was powerful and successful. Various organizations were allowed to visit the Governor's office and discuss the bill. A report from The Union of American Physicians and Dentists said that the Governor's spokespersons refuted all points presented in opposition to the bill. At showdown time on Friday, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) supported the bill despite a provision to allow "carve outs" or "alternative dispute resolution" techniques that could have adverse impact on state and county employees and despite the fact that the bill continues a practice that AFSCME itself voted against at its 37th International Convention (see last two paragraphs below).

The handwriting was on the wall when the California Medical Association, having helped get some small but positive amendments, joined in support of the bill. The California Orthopedic Association, previously opposed to the bill, went neutral at the last minute. Major support all along came from the California Labor Federation which teamed up with big business organizations such as Grimmway Farms to write the bill. Eventually, the California Chamber of Commerce announced support which allowed reluctant Republicans to vote for it. With Governor Brown's supreme effort, this coalition prevailed. It was a superb job of rescue-lobbying, pulling a burnt bill outa' the fire and getting it signed into law. The proponents deserve credit for doing their job well.

Strong opposition came from CSIMS which provided repeated technical analyses of the bill, not that rhyme or reason had all that much to do with the final vote. Opposition came from The International Longshore & Warehouse Union, Southern California District Council, Voters Injured at Work, California Teamsters Public Affairs Council, SEIU Local 121, LatinoComp, The California Neurology Society, California Applicants Attorneys Association, California Hospital Association, and the United Firefighters of Los Angeles. Some of the opponents provided testimony at hearings, others wrote letters, most did what they felt they could.  In the end, their combined opposition was overwhelmed when on the last day the Governor personally intervened. The opponent group still earns credit for their stalwart and principled fight on behalf of injured workers.

ISSUES NOT RESOLVED THAT MAY REQUIRE CLEAN-UP LEGISLATION OR RULINGS FROM THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

SB 863 replaces the current Utilization Review system with an Independent Medical Review (IMR) system where only the Medical Director will be required to be licensed in California. IMR companies, just as did the UR companies, will be free to retain non-California licensed doctors who will not be responsible to the Medical Board of California (MBC) or even to their own state medical boards since the latter don't have jurisdiction in California. This lapse wasn't an oversight. It is one of the ploys desired by big business and perhaps unwittingly supported by the California Labor Federation.

The ability to appeal even egregiously wrong decisions by Utilization Review doctors, now to be known as IMR doctors, has been severely curtailed. That a medical review decision may be wrong will not suffice to file an appeal in court. An example of what will be required will be accusations of fraud or bias. As long as there's no fraud or bias, an incorrect decision, even a harmful one, may stand. This oversight, if that is what it was, will discourage many potential treating doctors from becoming involved with difficult cases. The Brown administration, in its press release of 9/18/12, boasted that SB 863 would "reduce litigation, claims adjustment costs, and other frictional costs." In short, it'll reduce the ability of injured workers who've been denied access to treatment and other benefits from filing legal appeals. An Associated Press story from 9/19/12 bought the Governor's facile interpretation hook, line, and sinker.  The AP story stated that "the measure also aims to prevent lawsuits by establishing a binding independent review system to resolve medical disputes and shortens the timeline for approval of treatment from two years to three months." In a nutshell, this provision cuts the legs out from under injured workers who're denied access to the treatment recommended by their doctors.

Rules and Regulations are the next step. So is clean-up legislation and involvement of the OAL (Office of Administrative Law). The first step should be to require that all doctors who do IMR work in California be licensed in California. We should put a stop to carpet-bagger medical reviews. The IMR doctors should shoulder the same public policy responsibilities as the treating doctors they're judging. That means licensure in the state in which they work especially since the MBC has already stated that utilization review constitutes the practice of medicine. Two governors, Schwarzenegger and Brown, have ignored this advice. Nonetheless, this requirement was adopted in Chicago in 2006 by AFSCME at the 37th International Convention.  Here's the resolve:

"Therefore be it resolved that this convention declare that physicians working for utilization review companies reviewing the claims of injured workers be licensed in the states in which their decisions are used and where their decisions may influence the provision or denial of medical care to injured workers."

References

"Unions Fight to Protect Injured Workers," Resolution # 30, 37th International Convention, August 7 - 11, 2006, Chicago, submitted by Robert L. Weinmann, MD, President & Delegate, and by Stuart A. Bussey, MD, JD, Vice President & Delegate, UAPD/AFSCME, L 206

Note: Doctor Bussey is currently President of UAPD/AFSCME L 206

"How to Practice Medicine Without a License," by Robert L. Weinmann, San Franciso Chronicle, 8/29/08

"Doctors Who Do Utilization Review Should be Licensed in California," Robert L. Weinmann, MD, California Progress Report, 4/27/09

INDUSTRY JOURNAL PREDICTS $300 MILLION INCREASE IN WORKERS' COMP COSTS

$300 million -- that's what the Insurance Journal says will be the increased costs if SB 863 passes into law. That was the IJ headline on 8/27/12.

But in an article that was originally published in Labor's Edge and that got reprinted on 8/28/12 in California Progress Report,  Author Angie Wei, Legislative Director of the California Labor Federation, concluded that "there is no other path to getting $740 million back in benefits to injured workers. The Legislature must pass SB 863." But Angie isn't the only person who has fought for increased benefits to injured workers. Stan, who replied to her CPR piece, disagreed vehemently. I also disagree. Here's why:

1) The proposed legislation cuts costs by $1.4 billion, but only about 50% of that goes into Permanent Disability (PD). Who gets the rest?

2) The proposed legislation actually cuts several benefits that injured workers currently receive. For instance, we all know that Utilization Review (UR) as it's currently conducted is unfair to injured workers; however, UR decisions can be challenged under the current system. Under SB 863 the current UR system will be replaced by an Independent Medical Review (IMR) system which will be even more protected from challenges by injured workers who feel they were wrongly treated. This change will save $90 million in costs, costs that previously benefitted injured workers.

3) Outpatient surgery centers will have their reimbursement rate reduced to 80% of the hospital rate even when their services are superior. That'll save another $110 million. How does that benefit injured workers? The point is that the change to an IMR system when combined with the reduced reimbursement to outpatient surgery centers will cut costs by $200 million taken right out of the hearts and souls -- and bones -- of injured workers.

4) SB 863 will replace the antiquated but already low paying Official Medical Fee Schedule with an even lower paying Medicare RBRVS schedule which will apply mostly to specialists. Reducing access to specialty care does not help injured workers regain their ability to compete in the open market place.

5) SB 863 will eliminate sleep impairments (dyssomnia) caused by injuries that have caused chronic pain. The claim is that this change will save $40 million in benefits that won't be paid to injured workers.

6) SB 863 will eliminate sexual dysfunction even when caused by spinal injuries, a change that reportedly might save another $10 million. The savings for this category is lower because many injured workers are too embarrassed to assert this claim. These changes alone amount to $250 million in savings that'll be ripped from the guts of injured workers.  There are also other reductions.

7) LatinoComp stated the following in its own statement on SB 863: "All Injury Claims by State Employees Will Be Removed From The Workers Compensation System." This change amounts to a slap in the face with a simultaneous kick in the butt to injured workers.  The California Labor Federation and affiliated unions such as the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) should be in staunch opposition to this plank.

So what's behind this  bill that Angie Wei reports "is not perfect?" We agree only that "the Schwarzenegger 'reform' has failed both employers and workers." Her piece says that one of the faults of SB 899 is that "medical treatment is delayed." That's true. But SB 863 makes sure that medical treatment will be delayed even more and more often denied than currently. Angie Wei's real beef appears to be "opposition from vendors (italics added) who profit from the status quo."  Vendors? Does that remark include the lawyers who represent injured workers and the doctors who care for them? If it does, we need to renegotiate. Come to think of it, comprehensive negotiations  including small employers and other stakeholders have been absent from the negotiating table from the beginning.  The answer is a special session after this legislative year. The special session should include all stakeholders, not just a selected few.