BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                       



           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                   AB 361|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                         |
          |1020 N Street, Suite 524          |                         |
          |(916) 651-1520         Fax: (916) |                         |
          |327-4478                          |                         |
           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
           
                                         
                                 THIRD READING


          Bill No:  AB 361
          Author:   Lowenthal (D)
          Amended:  6/16/09 in Senate
          Vote:     21

           
           SENATE LABOR & INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMM.  :  4-1, 6/25/09
          AYES:  DeSaulnier, Ducheny, Leno, Yee
          NOES:  Hollingsworth
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Wyland

           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  77-0, 5/18/09 - See last page for vote


           SUBJECT  :    Workers compensation:  treatment authorization

           SOURCE  :     California Chiropractic Association


           DIGEST  :    This bill prohibits an employer from refusing to  
          pay for workers compensation medical treatment services if  
          the employer had approved those services prior to  
          treatment.  This bill specifies when an employer is  
          authorized to rescind or modify an authorization for  
          treatments or services that have not already been provided.

           Senate Floor Amendments  of 9/2/09 specify when a employer  
          can rescind or modify a pre-authorized medical treatment  
          and stipulates a section of the bill as declaratory of  
          existing law.

           ANALYSIS  :    Existing law establishes a workers'  
          compensation system, administered by the Administrative  
                                                           CONTINUED





                                                                AB 361
                                                                Page  
          2

          Director of the Division of Workers' Compensation (DWC), to  
          compensate an employee for injuries that arise out of, or  
          in the course of, employment.  Employers are required to  
          secure the payment of workers' compensation for injuries  
          incurred by their employees.  Workers' compensation  
          insurance provides six basic benefits which include medical  
          care, temporary disability benefits, permanent disability  
          benefits, supplemental job displacement benefits or  
          vocational rehabilitation and death benefits. 

          Existing law requires every employer to establish a medical  
          treatment utilization review process, in compliance with  
          specified requirements, either directly or through its  
          insurer or an entity with which the employer or insurer  
          contracts for these services.  Utilization review (UR) is  
          the process used by employers or claim administrators to  
          review and approve, modify, delay, or deny, treatment  
          recommendations made by physicians.  UR can occur before,  
          during or after medical treatment to determine if the  
          treatment is effective.  Treatment may be modified,  
          delayed, or denied based upon the results of the review. 

          Under existing law, employers are authorized to enter into  
          a contract with a specialized workers' compensation health  
          care organization (HCO) for the provision of medical  
          services under the workers' compensation system.  An  
          employer's use of HCOs, among other things, allows an  
          employer to maintain medical control over the injured  
          employee's workers' compensation claim for up to 180 days  
          after an injury or illness occurs, however, the HCO is  
          required to maintain certain standards of care as a  
          condition of that control.

          Under existing law, employers are also authorized to  
          establish a medical provider network (MPN) for the  
          provision of medical services under the workers'  
          compensation system.  MPNs are required to meet access to  
          care standards which require, among other things, that MPNs  
          follow all medical treatment guidelines established by the  
          DWC.  In addition, the use of an MPN generally allows an  
          employer to maintain medical control for the life of the  
          workers' compensation claim. 

          Existing law prohibits, in the context of health care  







                                                                AB 361
                                                                Page  
          3

          service plans, the health care insurer from rescinding or  
          modifying an authorization for medical services after the  
          services are rendered. 

          This bill prohibits an employer from denying payment for  
          medical treatment after the treatment has already been  
          authorized and rendered.  Specifically, this bill: 

          1.Provides that regardless of whether an employer  
            established an MPN or entered into a contract with an  
            HCO, an employer that authorizes medical treatment shall  
            not, for any reason, rescind or modify the authorization  
            for the portion of the medical treatment that has been  
            provided after that treatment has been provided based on  
            that authorization.  If the treatment consists of a  
            series of treatments or services, and the employer wishes  
            to rescind or modify its pre-authorization, the employer  
            may do so only for the treatments or services that have  
            not already been provided. 


          2.Provides that its provisions shall not be construed to  
            expand or alter the benefits available under, or the  
            terms and conditions of, any contract, including existing  
            MPN or HCO contracts. 

          3.Provides that its provisions shall not be construed to  
            impact the ability of the employer to transfer treatment  
            of an injured employee into an MPN or HCO.  This bill  
            does not change the law with respect to ongoing medical  
            treatment.

          4.Provides that its provisions shall not be construed to  
            establish that a provider of authorized medical treatment  
            is the primary care physician, as specified.  

           Comments
           
          Concerns have been raised by the sponsors of the bill  
          claiming that some physicians have experienced  
          reimbursement problems when billing for services that had  
          been previously approved by the appropriate payor.  This  
          bill will prohibit an employer when providing workers'  
          compensation coverage from rescinding or modifying an  







                                                                AB 361
                                                                Page  
          4

          authorization for medical services after the services have  
          been rendered.  UR would continue to occur, however, if by  
          the time the review is completed medical services have  
          already been provided to the injured employee, this bill  
          would prohibit any changes to the prior authorization and  
          would require employers to pay for all services rendered.  

          FISCAL EFFECT  :    Appropriation:  No   Fiscal Com.:  No    
          Local:  No

           SUPPORT  :   (Verified  9/3/09)

          California Chiropractic Association (source) 
          American Federation of State, County and Municipal  
          Employees, AFL-CIO 
          Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
          California Applicants' Attorneys Association 
          California Chiropractic Association
          California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
          California Medical Association 
          California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing  
          Committee
          California Physical Therapy Association 
          California Professional Firefighters
          California School Employees Association, AFL-CIO
          California State Employees Association 
          Glendale City Employees Association
          Los Angeles Police Protective League
          Los Angeles Probation Officers' Union, AFSCME, Local 685
          Orange County Professional Firefighters' Association
          Organization of SMUD Employees
          Peace Officers Research Association of California
          Riverside Sheriffs' Association
          San Bernardino Public Employees Association
          San Luis Obispo County Employees Association 
          Santa Rosa City Employees Association

           OPPOSITION  :    (Verified  9/3/09)

          Association of California Insurance Companies

           ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT  :    According to proponents, most  
          doctors obtain prior authorization before beginning  
          treatment, however, they argue, some insurance companies  







                                                                AB 361
                                                                Page  
          5

          will grant authorization for a course of treatment and then  
          deny reimbursement when the doctor sends in the bill after  
          the authorized care was provided.  Proponents argue that  
          insurance companies will often retroactively deny coverage  
          for these treatments because they do not determine until  
          later that the doctor was not on the correct "preferred  
          provider" sub-panel.  

          The author believes this bill is necessary to prohibit an  
          insurance company that provides workers' compensation  
          coverage from rescinding or modifying an authorization for  
          medical services after the services are rendered.   
          Proponents argue that this bill would prevent retroactive  
          denial of payment to the physician even if the employer  
          subsequently determines the physician was not eligible  
          under the MPN or HCO contract to provide the specific  
          treatment. According to the author, this will assure  
          doctors that the pre-authorized services they provide, even  
          if authorized in error by the insurer, will be compensated.  
           

          In addition, proponents argue that the cost of erroneous  
          preauthorization should not be shifted to the injured  
          worker.  Also, proponents assert that similar protections  
          are afforded patients in group health settings, and injured  
          workers deserve no less. 

           ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION  :    Opponents believe that this  
          bill is unfair and would not improve the medical care  
          provided to injured workers. The bill prohibits a carrier  
          from modifying or rescinding authorization for treatment  
          "for any reason," and opponents believe that this policy  
          ignores responsibilities for medical treatment that are  
          already imposed on employers and insurers.  

          According to opponents, Labor Code requires an employer to  
          authorize medical treatment within one working day after  
          the employee files the appropriate claim form.  The  
          authorized treatment must be provided until the claim is  
          accepted or rejected.   Opponents argue that in order to  
          facilitate the immediate provision of care, it is sometimes  
          necessary to authorize care when doubt exists. However,  
          opponents claim, when information makes it clear that  
          injury was not a workplace injury or when the carrier  







                                                                AB 361
                                                                Page  
          6

          discovers that the treatment was not appropriate the  
          carrier/employer must, and should, rescind such  
          authorization.  Opponents also argue that this bill's  
          denial of this flexibility is not in the best interest for  
          injured workers since it would prevent a carrier from  
          denying treatment that is unnecessary.   
           

           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :
          AYES:  Adams, Ammiano, Anderson, Arambula, Beall, Bill  
            Berryhill, Tom Berryhill, Blakeslee, Block, Blumenfield,  
            Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero, Charles Calderon, Carter,  
            Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon,  
            DeVore, Duvall, Emmerson, Evans, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong,  
            Fuentes, Fuller, Furutani, Gaines, Galgiani, Garrick,  
            Gilmore, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill,  
            Huber, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Krekorian, Lieu,  
            Logue, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Miller, Monning,  
            Nava, Nestande, Niello, Nielsen, John A. Perez, V. Manuel  
            Perez, Portantino, Ruskin, Salas, Silva, Skinner, Smyth,  
            Solorio, Audra Strickland, Swanson, Torlakson, Torres,  
            Torrico, Tran, Villines, Yamada, Bass
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Eng, Price, Saldana


          AGB:nl  9/3/09   Senate Floor Analyses 

                         SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  SEE ABOVE

                                ****  END  ****