IS UTILIZATION REVIEW IN THE CARDS FOR 2015?

Utilization Review (UR) is the process in Workers Comp whereby outside physicians decide whether or not to authorize care prescribed by a PTP (Primary Treating Physician) or consultant called upon by the PTP to advise about the next diagnostic or therapeutic steps that should be taken for an industrial patient or injured worker. Under current California law the UR physician does not have to be licensed to practice medicine in California -- any state license suffices. Proponents of the current system argue in support of the position that where a physician is licensed is beside the point and should not be made an issue. What matters, they say, is that he is knowledgeable in the specialty in which he opines and on this basis should be allowed to approve or disallow authorization for treatment based on accepted peer review guidelines. Opponents point out that the UR physician is actually practicing medicine and should be just as responsible to the state medical board as the PTP.

Opponents assert that some insurance companies go out of there way to find physicians who are more likely than others to be nay-sayers who deny more diagnostic services and treatment than their colleagues. California's state medical board has recognized this awkward situation and is on record saying that UR is part of the practice of medicine and that UR physicians on California cases should be licensed in this state. This writer agrees, but it will take fresh legislation to get this change into law. In fact, three times such legislation actually cleared the California legislature, and three times it was vetoed, twice by Gov. Schwarzenegger, once by Gov. Brown, at the heavy handed persuasion of the insurance lobby. However, the tax circumstances that applied then no longer apply, reason enough to try again and give Gov. Brown a chance to redeem himself.

This topic has previously been discussed in these pages, e.g., "Utilization Review: Hypocrisy in Velvet Gloves," and reprinted in toto in workcompcentral, 2014-03-26.

See also for reference "How to practice medicine without a license," San Francisco Chronicle, 8/29/08.

Willful or wrongful denial of care may constitute "unprofessional conduct." If a doctor with a California license willfully or wrongfully denies care, that doctor may be asked to appear before the state medical board for "unprofessional conduct." No such threat awaits the non-California licensed physician. The non-California licensed physician may not be hauled before his own state board, either -- that board would not have jurisdiction in a California case. As matters stand now, the doctors whose decisions invariably favor cost-cutting by denying care need not worry about professional discipline for wrongful denials of care. This situation begs to be changed. It'll require legislation akin to Texas law which requires doctors who do UR in Texas to be licensed in Texas.

At the moment, doctors licensed in California cannot do UR on Texas patients without first getting licensed in Texas. By contrast, Texas doctors who aren't licensed in California may deny authorization for diagnostic studies or treatment ordered by doctors licensed in California who are trying to take care of patients injured in California. The California doctor ends up carrying the proverbial malpractice bag through no fault of his own. The non-California doctor who actually denied the diagnostic study or treatment skedaddles away paid and unscathed.

One major lobbyist told me he's all for revising Utilization Review law but would need to be assured that the Governor would not veto it this time. As anyone knows who has dealt with Gov. Brown, we do not offer guarantees on what he'll do or won't do. Our job is to persuade.

UR in California is often buttressed by a yes-man mentality from IMR physicians, that is, from Independent Medical Review doctors who also don't need to be licensed in California and, who, to make matters worse, are actually protected by anonymity endowed by recently passed California legislation which also cries out for adjustment, better yet, outright repeal (we refer here to SB 863, DeLeon). The Medical Board of California (under then President Richard Fanozzi, MD) stated in a letter dated 8/25/08 that the MBC supported legislation that "would require a physician who is conducting utilization review to be licensed in California " because that "would provide increased consumer protection over decisions that do not have patients as its primary concern."

Instead, what has happened with IMR is that "consumer protections over decisions that do not have patients as its primary concern" has been weakened.

Organizations that have previously expressed concern with current standards re UR include the California Society of Industrial Medicine and Surgery (CSIMS), California Physical Medicine and Rehab (CPM&R), California Medical Association (CMA), California Applicants' Attorneys Association (CAAA), Union of American Physicians and Dentists (UAPD), Voters Injured at Work (VIAW), LatinoComp, and California Neurology Society (CNS).

We're now obliged to wait to see which one takes the lead on UR and IMR reform in the 2015 legislative year. Our recommendation is that it be a consortium that pools its resources. 

HOW UTILIZATION REVIEW AND INDEPENDENT MEDICAL REVIEW WORK TOGETHER TO DEPRIVE INJURED WORKERS OF CARE

The Medical Board of California is not at this time placing high priority on reform of either Utilization Review (UR) or Independent Medical Review (IMR).  

UR is required before Primary Treating Physicians (PTPs) or consultants can initiate diagnostic studies and/or institute treatment. UR physicians can deny or modify diagnostic or treatment requests by treating doctors. For instance, in one case we're studying, an orthopedic surgeon asked for authorization to do a preliminary treatment and if that treatment failed to go ahead with a fusion. The UR consultant authorized the preliminary treatment, not the fusion. Trouble is the authorized preliminary treatment failed. Since the request to do a fusion should the preliminary fail was denied, this injured worker will now go without the recommended follow-up fusion advised by the expert opinion of the evaluating orthopedic surgeon. The inherent absurdity in the program is that the UR doctor did not interview or examine the patient and reviewed only whatever records were given him by the insurance company. 

A current case that has come under our review concerns a patient who has lifetime medical care and who from time to time when symptoms recur gets physical therapy -- not this time, though! The request for physical therapy, reviewed by Doctor Unctious (his real name is kept secret by the Independent Medical Review Service run by Maximus) denied the request for physical therapy. The treating doctor won't be able to quiz Doctor Unctious because his real name is "protected" by Maximus. This kind of secret denial harkens back to the French Revolution when secret "lettres de cachet" filed by nobles enabled imprisonment of named victims without having to disclose who wrote the "lettre de cachet" in the first place. Perhaps it's better that Untious' real name isn't known. So far our review suggests that Dr. Unctious' professional conduct deserves disciplinary review by the Medical Board.

Aye, but there's the rub! Unctious does not have a California license and under California law does not need to be licensed in this state to practice UR in California. He is free to deny or modify care without a California  license to practice medicine. The official letter denying care trumpets that Unctious is licensed in Ohio and Texas, but those boards can't review Unctious' clinical conduct because those boards don't have jurisdiction in California. 

The California legislature has passed three bills requiring UR doctors to be licensed in California. All were vigorously  protested by the insurance industry. All three bills were vetoed, twice by Schwarzenegger (no surprise) and once by Brown (big surprise). The meaning of this quirk is that non-California licensed doctors do not come under the jurisdiction of the MBC whereas the  PTPs who  are left holding the bag when treatment isn't authorized remain subject to discipline by the MBC.

Texas requires doctors who do UR on Texas patients to be licensed in Texas.  The upshot is that Texas doctors may do UR in California without being licensed in this state whereas California doctors who want to do UR in Texas must first get a Texas license.

So here's how the "double whammy' works: first, UR denies treatment. Then, instead of judicial review by the WCAB, the case gets turned over to Maximus with its cadre of anonymous doctors who have in common with their UR counterparts that they also don't have to be licensed in California.

Epilogue: In the case at hand the patient is getting the P.T. he needs. He's just paying for it himself.  We regret that the Medial Board of California doesn't see enough inequity in this desultory situation to demand that UR and IMR doctors be licensed in California.

OPPOSE AB 1886 (EGGMAN) UNLESS AMENDED

AB 1886 (Eggman) cleared committee today by 9 to 4. Organizations that should have spotted it as a dangerous bill were silent except for the Union of American Physicians and Dentists and the California Medical Association which were opposed. The UAPD states that "this bill would remove the requirement that specified information be posted on the Internet for a period of 10 years thereby requiring that information to be posted indefinitely." For doctors who've committed minor infractions such as being late with reporting requirements this legislation could be a life sentence, e.g., MPNs may very well reject applications of doctors who are listed even for such minor offenses as late reporting. Such doctors run the risk of  lifetime bans. We doubt that the proponents of the bill intend this consequence -- but there it is.

Under current law according to the  Medical Practice Act the Medical Board of California is obliged to post certain information such as malpractice awards on the Internet for 10 years. Once this requirement is gone, such information could be posted indefinitely, effectively a life sentence. The bill should be opposed unless amended.