BILL ANALYSIS Ó ------------------------------------------------------------ |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 959| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ------------------------------------------------------------ THIRD READING Bill No: SB 959 Author: Lieu (D) Amended: 4/9/12 Vote: 21 SENATE LABOR & INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMM. : 5-0, 5/9/12 AYES: Lieu, DeSaulnier, Leno, Padilla, Yee NO VOTE RECORDED: Wyland, Runner SUBJECT : Workers compensation: provider reimbursement: Implantable medical devices, hardware, and instrumentation SOURCE : Author DIGEST : This bill repeals the additional, separate reimbursement in excess of the Official Medical Fee Schedule, for implantable medical devices, hardware, and instrumentation for spinal surgeries, also known as "spinal pass-through." ANALYSIS : Existing law establishes a workers' compensation system that provides benefits to an employee who suffers from an injury or illness that arises out of and in the course of employment, irrespective of fault. This system requires all employers to secure payment of benefits by either securing the consent of the Department of Industrial Relations to self-insure or by securing insurance against liability from an insurance company duly CONTINUED SB 959 Page 2 authorized by the state. Existing law requires the Administrative Director of the Division of Workers' Compensation to adopt and periodically revise an Official Medical Fee Schedule (OMFS) to establish reasonable maximum medical fees for medical services, including physician services and medical-legal expenses. These fees are generally in accordance with the Medicare and Medi-Cal payment systems. Existing law provides for an additional, separate reimbursement for implantable medical devices, hardware, and instrumentation for spinal surgeries. This separate reimbursement, also known as the spinal pass-through is: The provider's documented paid cost of the device, hardware, or instrumentation. The lesser of either $250 or 10 percent of the provider's documented paid cost for the device, hardware, or instrumentation. Any sales tax and shipping and handling charges actually paid. Existing law also provides that the spinal pass-through is operative only until the Administrative Director adopts a regulation specifying separate reimbursement, if any, for implantable medical hardware or instrumentation for complex spinal surgeries. This bill repeals the additional, separate reimbursement in excess of the OMFS, for implantable medical devices, hardware, and instrumentation for spinal surgeries, also known as "spinal pass-through." Comments Workers' Compensation System Reimbursement for Spinal Procedures . Since 2003, the OFMS reimburses most workers' compensation procedures at 120 percent of the Medicare payment system rate. Like the Medicare system, the OMFS utilizes Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Groups (MS-DRG) when calculating appropriate reimbursements for a CONTINUED SB 959 Page 3 variety of surgical procedures, including spinal surgeries. The MS-DRG system was put in place by Medicare in 2007, and it creates a classification system for hospital payments that can be adjusted by the cost of the procedure, geography, and other considerations. The appropriate MS-DRG is selected based on diagnosis of the patient and any relevant complications or co-morbidities (a disease or disorder in addition to the primary disease or disorder) the patient may have. Using spinal surgeries as an example, MS-DRG 30 is for spinal procedures without major complications or co-morbidities; MS-DRG 28 is for spinal procedures with major complications and co-morbidities. As MS-DRG is more complicated and requires additional resources, it weighted more significantly. In both cases, for the purposes of Medicare, the MS-DRG includes the cost of the device. No additional reimbursement is allowed. For example, a hypothetical MS-DRG 30 procedure (spinal procedure without complications or major complications) in a non-teaching generic hospital in 2012 would be reimbursed as follows (with the workers' compensation reimbursement in parentheses): (Base-operating costs)(MS-DRG)= Medicare Reimbursement. (Medicare Reimbursement)(1.2)= Workers' Compensation Reimbursement. ($5,209.74)(1.6924)= $8,816.97 ($10,580.36). However, a hypothetical MS-DRG 28 procedure (spinal procedure with major complications) in the same hospital in 2012 would be reimbursed as follows: (Base-operating costs)(MS-DRG)= Medicare Reimbursement. (Medicare Reimbursement)(1.2)= Workers' Compensation Reimbursement. ($5,209.74)(5.6476)= $29,422.58 ($35,307.03). In short, while the specific reimbursement amount will vary from hospital to hospital, the more labor intensive and resource intensive procedures will be reimbursed at a higher rate. The MS-DRG weights are adjusted annually by Medicare, allowing for utilization and market factors to CONTINUED SB 959 Page 4 impact reimbursements. Additionally, the workers' compensation system has an additional reimbursement with the spinal pass-through. According to the California Workers' Compensation Institute, the spinal pass-through in 2007 and 2008 added, on average, $15,409 to each spinal procedure, though the cost of the pass-through varies significantly between MS-DRGs (between $6,137 and $49,304). The use of the pass-through differs from Medicare, as the MS-DRG is calculated to capture the cost of the device, which will be discussed below. Studies on the Spinal Pass-Through in the Workers' Compensation System . The spinal pass-through was codified in SB 228 (Alarcon), Chapter 639, Statutes of 2003, in the most recent wave of workers' compensation reform bills, culminating in SB 899 (Poochigian), Chapter 34,Statutes of 2004. Prior to the codification of the spinal pass-through, the Commission on Health, Safety, and Workers' Compensation (CHSWC) released a report from RAND that raised concerns on the need for a spinal pass-through, which at that time existed as a regulation. The RAND study noted that the pass-through results in the "paying for the hardware twice: once in the DRG fee schedule relative and again in the additional payment for the hardware costs." CHSWC commissioned a second study in 2005 to review the spinal pass-through. This study, titled "Payment for Hardware Used in Complex Spinal Procedures under California's Official Medical Fee Schedule for Injured Workers" made several important findings: On average, workers' compensation patients are less costly than Medicare patients and have a shorter length of stay. The Medicare cost per discharge was found to be about 14 percent higher than the cost per discharge for workers' compensation patient. Since the workers' compensation fee schedule reimburses at 120 percent of the Medicare rates, workers' compensation reimbursements exceed estimated costs without the pass-through. CONTINUED SB 959 Page 5 Four hospitals in California showed usages rates in excess of what would be expected when compared to other hospitals performing workers' compensation spinal surgeries. The existing spinal pass-through does not incentivize prudent purchasing and use of spinal hardware. The findings of this study were further discussed and supported in two RAND studies that followed in 2009. One study, titled "Inpatient Hospital Services: An Update on Services Provided Under California's Workers' Compensation Program" showed an increase in utilization of spinal hardware from 2003 to 2005, notably in DRGs that included hardware that would qualify for the pass-through. The second study, titled "Regulatory Actions that Could Reduce Unnecessary Medical Expenses Under California's Workers' Compensation Program" identified the spinal pass-through as an area of potential savings in the workers' compensation system. This study pegged the savings between $23 million and $60 million, depending on the policy adopted to replace the current spinal pass-through reimbursement. Prior legislation SB 228 (Alarcon), Chapter 639, Statutes of 2003, codifies the current spinal pass-through reimbursement. FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No SUPPORT : (Verified 5/10/12) Actief Case Management, Inc. Aerospace Dynamics International, Inc. American Insurance Association Association of California Insurance Companies California Association of Joint Powers Authority California Coalition on Workers' Compensation California Grocers Association California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO California Manufacturers & Technology Association CONTINUED SB 959 Page 6 California Professional Firefighters California Restaurant Association California Retailers Association California Self-Insurers Association California State Association of Counties California Trucking Association Costco Wholesale County of San Bernardino CSAC Excess Insurance Authority EME International Employers Group FedEx Corporation Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. Grimmway Farms IBA West Indio Chamber of Commerce iUnlimited Investigative Services Marriott International, Inc. Morehouse Foods, Inc. National Federation of Independent Business Nordstrom North Bay Schools Insurance Authority Pacific Athletic Wear, Inc. PPG Aerospace Regional Council of Rural Counties San Diego and Imperial County Schools JPA Schools Insurance Authority Schools Insurance Group Seawright Custom Precast, Inc. Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. The Boeing Company TRISTAR Risk Management U.S. Healthworks Western Home Furnishings Association Western Propane Gas Association OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/10/12) Access MediQuip California Hospital Association Medtronic ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Proponents, such as the California Labor Federation and the California Coalition on Workers' CONTINUED SB 959 Page 7 Compensation, note that the OMFS already provides a reimbursement 20 percent above the Medicare reimbursement, which already includes the cost of the device. Proponents argue that the RAND studies conclusively show that the additional spinal pass-through reimbursement in the workers' compensation system is unnecessary and promotes destructive incentives. Proponents cite a recent Wall Street Journal (WSJ) that provides a detailed account of how consultants have helped some hospitals cash in on the high reimbursements and, in the process, intentionally inflated the cost of medical devices in order to profit even more handsomely. Proponents argue that the story is evidence that the RAND findings are correct and that overreimbursement leads to bad behavior that drives bad results for injured workers and high costs for employers. Proponents argue that, with the RAND findings and WSJ story taken together, and with the absence of immediate regulatory action by the Division of Workers' Compensation, there is a need for immediate legislative action to repeal the spinal pass-through reimbursement. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Opponents, such as the California Hospital Association (CHA) and Medtronic, Inc., argue that eliminating the spinal pass-through will limit the ability of injured workers to receive necessary spinal surgeries. CHA argues that, prior to the existence of the pass-through, hospitals cancelled spinal surgeries for injured workers. CHA therefore argues that hospitals will be unable to provide this service without the pass-through. Medtronic also disputes the fiscal analysis done by RAND, as it relies on Medicare data, rather than workers' compensation data. Access MediQuip, a third-party benefit manager of surgical implants for hospitals, is also in opposition. Access MediQuip notes that their business model of purchasing devices and assuming the liability for workers' compensation claims management is dependent on at least a portion of the pass-through. Access MediQuip argues that these services save hospitals significant amounts of money through utilizing the scale of third party benefit managers like Access MediQuip. Access MediQuip also argues that, due to their experience with spinal hardware, they can steer payors towards safer and more cost effective spinal CONTINUED SB 959 Page 8 hardware, which provides secondary benefits to the workers' compensation system. Access MediQuip suggests that the Legislature pursue alternatives to the complete elimination of the spinal pass-through, which would allow companies like Access MediQuip to continue to provide services to hospitals but remove the "double-dipping" aspect of the current reimbursement system. PQ:do 5/10/12 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END **** CONTINUED