AgdaPkt 2003-09-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

9.A-'5 WORKERS COMP from page 1 6 0 a 0.6 Note: The League's position on these issues is contingent upon examination of actual language in a bill. 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 a 0 6 6 apply. Position: Support. User Funding: Increase employer share of user funding from current 20% to 100% under Labor Code Section 62.5. This proposal appears to establish priorities for how the funding is to be used. Position: Oppose. Repeal of Existing IMC Treatment Guidelines and Specified Duties: Deletes provisions authorizing the Industrial Medical Council (IMC) to issue treatment guidelines and to be involved in fee - schedule matters. Repeals existing IMC treatment guidelines and utilization review regulations. This appears to eliminate two primary duties of the IMC. These duties would be taken over by other changes being recommended. Position: Neutral. Utilization Schedule: Requires the Com- mission on Health and Safety and Workers' Com- pensation (CHSWC) to conduct a survey and evaluation of exiting medical treatment utilization standards by July 1, 2004, and to issue a report of its findings by October 1, 2004, for adoption of a utilization schedule. Position: Support. Utilization Schedule Presumption: Establishes a presumption of correctness for the utilization guidelines. The American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine iACOEM) guidelines would be the standard until the AD adopts guidelines. Position: Support. Repeal of Two Track OME Process I and II: Prohibit injured workers who have gone through the panel Qualified Medical Examiner (QME) process and later become represented by an attorney, from starting the medical -legal process over again on the "represented track" and getting another QME report. Position: Support. Utilization Review: Requires all employers to adopt utilization review systems, consistent with the utilization schedule /ACOEM. In cases involving spinal surgery, denials will go to the Independent Medical Review (IMR) process. In all other cases, the existing QME /AME process will continue to Treating Physician's Presumption of Correctness: Repea.s the treater's presumption of correctness for all da.es of injury, except in cases where the employee has "pre- designated" his or her personal physician or chiropractor. Position: Support, but recommend complete repeal ever for pre- designated physicians. The pre- designated personal physician is the least knowledgeable regarding workers' compensation process and reporting procedures. Administrative Director to Adopt Utiliza- tion Schedule: Requires the AD to adopt a medi- cal treatment utilization schedule by December 1, 2004. Position: Support. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) Jurisdiction over IMR: Allows the WCAB to hear disputes regarding the IMR decisions. Position: Support, so long as the IMR decisions are presumed correct. Establishment of IMR Pilot Project: Sets up the IMR pilot project for spinal surgeries from July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2007. Position: Support. IMR Costs: Provides that all IMR costs are borne by the employer. Position: Pending. The language should be clear that employer's cost does not include appeals to the WCAB. We suggest the IMR cost somehow be identified in advance. IMR Appeals Process: Provides for appeal from IMR to a workers' compensation judge. The IMR decision carries a rebuttable presumption of correctness. Position: Support. Self Referral Prohibition: Adds outpatient surgery clinics to those who may not self- refer. Position: Support. Self Referral Disclosure: Allows self - referral to outpatient surgery center where the provider discloses the financial relationship to the employer and the employer pre- authorizes the treatment at the center. Position: Support, how- Condnued on Pape 6 Visit the League's Official Web Site-- www.cacities.org PRIORITY FOCUS /PAGE 5