SURPRISE BILLING MAKES NEWS AGAIN

Under the direction of Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones the Department of Insurance has adopted new regulations intended to implement the provisions of Assembly Bill 72 (Bonta). For the legislative wonks among us, that means that Chapter 492, Statutes of 2016, now govern how "surprise billing" will be done. 

That means that AB 72 which is supposed to protect us from high medical bills when we get care from out-of-network providers has new hurdles to implement. For review, an out-of-network provider may be the doctor your Medical Provider Network (MPN) calls in to provide care for you when the MPN does not have a particular provider's specialty in the MPN. That's when the out-of-network provider may bill more than the MPN's subscribers expect. As of 1 January 2019 there are new regulations, e.g., average contracted rates approved by the Office of Administrative Law (OAL).

Here's how it'll work: let's say you, as a subscriber to Blah Blah MPN, get sick and require specialized medical care not available in your provider network. That circumstance is the cue for the MPN to call in non-contracted physicians. Under this circumstance the non-contracted or out-of-network physician is allowed to bill more than would be allowed if the service were prescribed by an in-network physician. Sometimes a whole lot more! Therein lies the mighty consumer squawk!

Under the new law the out-of-network provider may charge 125% of Medicare or the average contracted rate for the particular geographic area involved, whichever is more. The new regulations per Insurance Commissioner Jones set up methodolgy for this calculation. The resulting figure is the "average contracted rate."

The idea is to standardize rates and avoid disputes. Rate adjustment to recognize inflation will be taken into account. 

At the same time insurance plans and MPNs will supposedly be obliged to have adequate networks of in-network physicians so that calling in out-of-network physicians will be minimized. In theory it'll be the obligation of the network to provide timely care via in-network contractors. That's where the real rub is -- the statement we have from the insurance commissioner says "insurers are required to maintain an adequate provider network to ensure timely access to care for their policyholders." The statement also says that "when patients are forced to go to out-of-network at an in-network facility, the patient should not have to pay more for their care and the providers should be reimbursed fairly (italics added)."

Aye, and there's the rub! The language we want to see in law on this matter should not say "should," it should say "shall." This one 
word would convert a wishy-washy statement into a firm statute. 

Under AB 72 we already have language to establish an Independent Dispute Resolution (IDR) mechanism. This item could be the vehicle that establishes fair and equitable reimbursement compliant with the aforementioned Chapter 492.

Governor Newsom has already signed an Executive Order that establishes a state-run purchasing program for prescription medications. Now it's time for follow-up. 

The Weinmann Report (www.polilticsofhealthcare.com) calls upon Governor Newsom to sign an executive order to require MPNs and insurance providers to be fully staffed with all specialties. Otherwise we've left a huge loophole open for provider networks to skimp on staffing and be obliged to use out-of-network providers. 

UNIONIZING PHYSICIANS IN WASHINGTON STATE -- Taking on MultiCare

In a historic development for professional unions, Stuart Bussey, MD, JD, president of the Union of American Physicians and Dentists (UAPD), stated on 15 October 2016 that the private practice physicians at Auburn Medical Center (AMC) in Tacoma, Washington, voted to join the UAPD -- the occasion is historic because it is the first time that the UAPD has formally organized a hospital medical staff outside of California. Although the UAPD has had non-California membership throughout its history, this effort marks the first successful organizational campaign outside of California. This step means that the UAPD and its AMC members can now negotiate legally with MultiCare which had opposed the formation of a doctors' union but which also indicated its intent to work with the physicians' elected union representative.

Local leadership was provided by Virginia Stowell, MD, general surgeon, whose concerns included winning more autonomy for physicians in the disposition of patient care, developing more clout in the negotiation of compensation and working conditions, and preventing the arbitrary outsourcing of professional work by hospital administration. Stowell's history includes having worked at MultiCare since 2012. Before that she was in private practice for 16 years. At the present time, MultiCare reviews physician compensation and makes its own decisions. From now on the UAPD will be enabled to participate in these decisions. In leading up to this historic vote, Stowell won two cases with NLRB that prevented MultiCare from foisting its will upon their physicians. In a nutshell, NLRB ruled that efforts by MultiCare  to prevent its doctors from discussing wages and working conditions violated the National Labor Relations Act which protects this activity.

It was pointed out during the voting process that hospitals have many committees staffed by physicians but that in the final analysis such committees have minimal ability to oppose administrative decisions decided upon by management. Stowell and others, including Neil Partain, a hospitalist at AMC, agreed that it would be better for the physicians and their patients if the doctors had a union to represent their views before the hospital and MultiCare.

Representing the UAPD in this effort was Theodore Gashaw, Lead Organizer, 916-796-3124, tgashaw@uapd.com.  Gashaw said that members of other systems have also called him although at this time MultiCare is where the UAPD has received the most interest.

Meanwhile in California, expanded interest in private practice organization is anticipated especially since Governor Brown signed AB 72 (Bonta) into law. This bill slashes "surprise billing" (see our previous editorial about "surprise billing" and AB 72, 6 October 2016) but leaves "network contraction" intact. Critics point out to what extent this legislation, under the guise of patient protection, actually promotes corporate compensation at the expense of patient care.

AB 72 (Bonta) targets physicians but leaves insurance companies and MPNs unscathed

Governor Brown signed AB 72 (Bonta) to put a stop to "surprise billing" but he left intact the ability of Medical Provider Networks (MPNs) and insurance companies to skimp on medical coverage, for instance, by not retaining enough specialists. When the MPN's patients then need the specialist that the MPN can't provide, "out-of-network" specialists are summoned. The "out-of-network" physicians, since they're not in-network, may bill at higher rates than the MPNs -- this practice has resulted in unpleasant surprises to patients when they learn that the medical bills they're getting are higher than expected because the specialist called in at the last minute was "out-of-network." This practice ends with Bonta's legislation which targets doctors but spares MPNs. Here's the scoop: the MPN purposefully retains too few doctors, especially specialists, in order to avoid paying "in-network" specialists. This desultory practice is known as "network contraction" or "in-network sharing." It allows more of subscribers' premium payments to be used for increased executive compensation instead of for patient care. Bonta's bill could have fixed this aspect of the problem along with the smack-down on "surprise billing." Only Bonta didn't want to ruffle the feathers of the insurers and MPNs. This writer recommends for legislative year 2017 that CMA, CSIMS, CNS, and UAPD seek legislation requiring MPNs to field fully staffed networks so that "out-of-network" doctors are no longer needed. The legislation needed would require that MPNs be fully  staffed or else -- the or else would be dissolution of the MPN for non-compliance.

VETO OR AMEND AB 72 (Bonta)

This memo was sent as a personal message to Governor Brown re AB 72 (Bonta) earlier this month just after the bill was enrolled and sent to his desk. Now we make it public:

"Because AB 72 leaves 'network contraction' as a viable business method, eliminating only the 'surprise billing' element,  if you let AB 72 slip into law, you might want to add a memo of your own that there should be follow-up legislation to make sure that the medical networks are fully staffed. 'Fully staffed' means that they include a complete range of medical and surgical specialists. 

Meantime, we recommend a veto."

Robert L. Weinmann, MD, Editor

Robert L. Weinmann, MD, Editor, The Weinmann Report (www.politicsofhealthcare.com) 

Reference for our readers:

Our original piece was posted on-line at www.politicsofhealthcare.com on 12 August 2016.  The title was "Assembly Bill 72 (Bonta): Oppose Unless Amended, a pending bait and switch bill," in other words, a bill to disallow "surprise billing" while leaving the underlying mechanism enabling appointment of out-of-network doctors intact. The mechanism is called "network contraction" and is also  known as "in-network cost sharing." It allows networks to understaff by purposefully not carrying enough network doctors to cover all medical and surgical specialties. It's a profitable network move at the expense of services to network subscribers or customers who don't know their insurance plan is not required by law to retain a full network of physicians and surgeons. So here is the amendment we recommended as of 8/12/16:

Health-care plans should be required to maintain full provider lists covering all specialties. The plans should provide these lists to their in-network providers and to all of their subscribers and customers. Networks that fail in this requirement should be penalized by fines and disciplinary action against their managers and officers.

9/23/2016 -- flash! Governor Brown signed AB 72 into law. There are no provisions in the bill to prevent corporate greed, e.g., "network contraction." The bill is aimed squarely between the eyes of "out-of-network" providers.