Amended in Assembly June 23, 2016

Amended in Assembly June 15, 2016

Amended in Senate January 4, 2016

Amended in Senate April 30, 2015

Amended in Senate April 13, 2015

Senate Bill No. 563

Introduced by Senator Pan

February 26, 2015

An act to amend Section 4610 of the Labor Code, relating to workers’ compensation.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

SB 563, as amended, Pan. Workers’ compensation: utilization review.

Existing law requires every employer, for purposes of workers’ compensation, to establish a utilization review process to prospectively, retrospectively, or concurrently review requests by physicians for authorization to provide recommended medical treatment to injured employees. Existing law establishes timeframes for an employer to make a determination regarding a physician’s request. Existing law requires the utilization review process to be governed by written policies and procedures, and requires that these policies and procedures be filed with the Administrative Director of the Division of Workers’ Compensation and disclosed by the employer to employees, physicians, and the public upon request.

This bill would prohibit the employer, or any entity conducting utilization review on behalf of the employer, from offering or providing any financial incentive or consideration to a physician based on the number of modifications, delays, or denials made by the physician. The bill would authorize the administrative director to review any compensation agreement, payment schedule, or contract between the employer, or any entity conducting utilization review on behalf of the employer, and the utilization review physician. The bill would make any information disclosed to the administrative director confidential and not subject to public disclosure, except as specified.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: no.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1.  

Section 4610 of the Labor Code is amended to
read:

4610.  

(a) For purposes of this section, “utilization review”
means utilization review or utilization management functions that
prospectively, retrospectively, or concurrently review and approve,
modify, delay, or deny, based in whole or in part on medical
necessity to cure and relieve, treatment recommendations by
physicians, as defined in Section 3209.3, prior to, retrospectively,
or concurrent with the provision of medical treatment services
pursuant to Section 4600.

(b) Every employer shall establish a utilization review process
in compliance with this section, either directly or through its insurer
or an entity with which an employer or insurer contracts for these
services.

(c) Each utilization review process shall be governed by written
policies and procedures. These policies and procedures shall ensure
that decisions based on the medical necessity to cure and relieve
of proposed medical treatment services are consistent with the
schedule for medical treatment utilization adopted pursuant to
Section 5307.27. These policies and procedures, and a description
of the utilization process, shall be filed with the administrative
director and shall be disclosed by the employer to employees,
physicians, and the public upon request.

(d) If an employer, insurer, or other entity subject to this section
requests medical information from a physician in order to
determine whether to approve, modify, delay, or deny requests for
authorization, the employer shall request only the information
reasonably necessary to make the determination. The employer,
insurer, or other entity shall employ or designate a medical director
who holds an unrestricted license to practice medicine in this state
issued pursuant to Section 2050 or 2450 of the Business and
Professions Code. The medical director shall ensure that the process
by which the employer or other entity reviews and approves,
modifies, delays, or denies requests by physicians prior to,
retrospectively, or concurrent with the provision of medical
treatment services, complies with the requirements of this section.
Nothing in this section shall be construed as restricting the existing
authority of the Medical Board of California.

(e) (1) No person other than a licensed physician who is
competent to evaluate the specific clinical issues involved in the
medical treatment services, and where these services are within
the scope of the physician’s practice, requested by the physician
may modify, delay, or deny requests for authorization of medical
treatment for reasons of medical necessity to cure and relieve.

(2) (A) The employer, or any entity conducting utilization
review on behalf of the employer, shall neither offer nor provide
any financial incentive or consideration to a physician based on
the number of modifications, delays, or denials made by the
physician under this section.

(B) An insurer or third-party administrator shall not refer
utilization review services conducted on behalf of an employer
under this section to an entity in which the insurer or third-party
administrator has a financial interest as defined under Section
139.32. This prohibition does not apply if the insurer or third-party
administrator provides the employer with prior written disclosure
of both of the following:

(i) The entity conducting the utilization review services.

(ii) The insurer or third-party administrator’s financial interest
in the entity.

(3) The administrative director has authority pursuant to this
section to review any compensation agreement, payment schedule,
or contract between the employer, or any entity conducting
utilization review on behalf of the employer, and the utilization
review physician. Any information disclosed to the administrative
director pursuant to this paragraph shall be considered confidential
information and not subject to disclosure pursuant to the California
Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250)
of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government begin delete Code) unless the
division can demonstrate that the information was in the public
domain at the time it was disclosed or has entered the public
domain through no fault of the division. end delete begin insert Code). end insert Disclosure of the
information to the administrative director pursuant to this
subdivision shall not waive the provisions of the Evidence Code
relating to privilege.

(f) The criteria or guidelines used in the utilization review
process to determine whether to approve, modify, delay, or deny
medical treatment services shall be all of the following:

(1) Developed with involvement from actively practicing
physicians.

(2) Consistent with the schedule for medical treatment utilization
adopted pursuant to Section 5307.27.

(3) Evaluated at least annually, and updated if necessary.

(4) Disclosed to the physician and the employee, if used as the
basis of a decision to modify, delay, or deny services in a specified
case under review.

(5) Available to the public upon request. An employer shall
only be required to disclose the criteria or guidelines for the
specific procedures or conditions requested. An employer may
charge members of the public reasonable copying and postage
expenses related to disclosing criteria or guidelines pursuant to
this paragraph. Criteria or guidelines may also be made available
through electronic means. No charge shall be required for an
employee whose physician’s request for medical treatment services
is under review.

(g) In determining whether to approve, modify, delay, or deny
requests by physicians prior to, retrospectively, or concurrent with
the provisions of medical treatment services to employees all of
the following requirements shall be met:

(1) Prospective or concurrent decisions shall be made in a timely
fashion that is appropriate for the nature of the employee’s
condition, not to exceed five working days from the receipt of the
information reasonably necessary to make the determination, but
in no event more than 14 days from the date of the medical
treatment recommendation by the physician. In cases where the
review is retrospective, a decision resulting in denial of all or part
of the medical treatment service shall be communicated to the
individual who received services, or to the individual’s designee,
within 30 days of receipt of information that is reasonably
necessary to make this determination. If payment for a medical
treatment service is made within the time prescribed by Section
4603.2, a retrospective decision to approve the service need not
otherwise be communicated.

(2) When the employee’s condition is such that the employee
faces an imminent and serious threat to his or her health, including,
but not limited to, the potential loss of life, limb, or other major
bodily function, or the normal timeframe for the decisionmaking
process, as described in paragraph (1), would be detrimental to the
employee’s life or health or could jeopardize the employee’s ability
to regain maximum function, decisions to approve, modify, delay,
or deny requests by physicians prior to, or concurrent with, the
provision of medical treatment services to employees shall be made
in a timely fashion that is appropriate for the nature of the
employee’s condition, but not to exceed 72 hours after the receipt
of the information reasonably necessary to make the determination.

(3) (A) Decisions to approve, modify, delay, or deny requests
by physicians for authorization prior to, or concurrent with, the
provision of medical treatment services to employees shall be
communicated to the requesting physician within 24 hours of the
decision. Decisions resulting in modification, delay, or denial of
all or part of the requested health care service shall be
communicated to physicians initially by telephone or facsimile,
and to the physician and employee in writing within 24 hours for
concurrent review, or within two business days of the decision for
prospective review, as prescribed by the administrative director.
If the request is not approved in full, disputes shall be resolved in
accordance with Section 4610.5, if applicable, or otherwise in
accordance with Section 4062.

(B) In the case of concurrent review, medical care shall not be
discontinued until the employee’s physician has been notified of
the decision and a care plan has been agreed upon by the physician
that is appropriate for the medical needs of the employee. Medical
care provided during a concurrent review shall be care that is
medically necessary to cure and relieve, and an insurer or
self-insured employer shall only be liable for those services
determined medically necessary to cure and relieve. If the insurer
or self-insured employer disputes whether or not one or more
services offered concurrently with a utilization review were
medically necessary to cure and relieve, the dispute shall be
resolved pursuant to Section 4610.5, if applicable, or otherwise
pursuant to Section 4062. Any compromise between the parties
that an insurer or self-insured employer believes may result in
payment for services that were not medically necessary to cure
and relieve shall be reported by the insurer or the self-insured
employer to the licensing board of the provider or providers who
received the payments, in a manner set forth by the respective
board and in such a way as to minimize reporting costs both to the
board and to the insurer or self-insured employer, for evaluation
as to possible violations of the statutes governing appropriate
professional practices. No fees shall be levied upon insurers or
self-insured employers making reports required by this section.

(4) Communications regarding decisions to approve requests
by physicians shall specify the specific medical treatment service
approved. Responses regarding decisions to modify, delay, or deny
medical treatment services requested by physicians shall include
a clear and concise explanation of the reasons for the employer’s
decision, a description of the criteria or guidelines used, and the
clinical reasons for the decisions regarding medical necessity. If
a utilization review decision to deny or delay a medical service is
due to incomplete or insufficient information, the decision shall
specify the reason for the decision and specify the information that
is needed.

(5) If the employer, insurer, or other entity cannot make a
decision within the timeframes specified in paragraph (1) or (2)
because the employer or other entity is not in receipt of all of the
information reasonably necessary and requested, because the
employer requires consultation by an expert reviewer, or because
the employer has asked that an additional examination or test be
performed upon the employee that is reasonable and consistent
with good medical practice, the employer shall immediately notify
the physician and the employee, in writing, that the employer
cannot make a decision within the required timeframe, and specify
the information requested but not received, the expert reviewer to
be consulted, or the additional examinations or tests required. The
employer shall also notify the physician and employee of the
anticipated date on which a decision may be rendered. Upon receipt
of all information reasonably necessary and requested by the
employer, the employer shall approve, modify, or deny the request
for authorization within the timeframes specified in paragraph (1)
or (2).

(6) A utilization review decision to modify, delay, or deny a
treatment recommendation shall remain effective for 12 months
from the date of the decision without further action by the employer
with regard to any further recommendation by the same physician
for the same treatment unless the further recommendation is
supported by a documented change in the facts material to the
basis of the utilization review decision.

(7) Utilization review of a treatment recommendation shall not
be required while the employer is disputing liability for injury or
treatment of the condition for which treatment is recommended
pursuant to Section 4062.

(8) If utilization review is deferred pursuant to paragraph (7),
and it is finally determined that the employer is liable for treatment
of the condition for which treatment is recommended, the time for
the employer to conduct retrospective utilization review in
accordance with paragraph (1) shall begin on the date the
determination of the employer’s liability becomes final, and the
time for the employer to conduct prospective utilization review
shall commence from the date of the employer’s receipt of a
treatment recommendation after the determination of the
employer’s liability.

(h) Every employer, insurer, or other entity subject to this section
shall maintain telephone access for physicians to request
authorization for health care services.

(i) If the administrative director determines that the employer,
insurer, or other entity subject to this section has failed to meet
any of the timeframes in this section, or has failed to meet any
other requirement of this section, the administrative director may
assess, by order, administrative penalties for each failure. A
proceeding for the issuance of an order assessing administrative
penalties shall be subject to appropriate notice to, and an
opportunity for a hearing with regard to, the person affected. The
administrative penalties shall not be deemed to be an exclusive
remedy for the administrative director. These penalties shall be
deposited in the Workers’ Compensation Administration Revolving
Fund.

SEC. 2.  

The Legislature finds and declares that Section 1 of
this act, which amends Section 4610 of the Labor Code, imposes
a limitation on the public’s right of access to the meetings of public
bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies within the
meaning of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution.
Pursuant to that constitutional provision, the Legislature makes
the following findings to demonstrate the interest protected by this
limitation and the need for protecting that interest:

The limitations on the people’s rights of access set forth in this
act are necessary to protect the privacy and integrity of information
submitted to the Administrative Director of the Division of
Workers’ Compensation pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision
(e) of Section 4610 of the Labor Code.