BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                     SB 563


                                                                    Page  1





          Date of Hearing:  June 22, 2016


                           ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON INSURANCE


                                   Tom Daly, Chair


          SB  
          563 (Pan) - As Amended June 15, 2016


          SENATE VOTE:  38-0


          SUBJECT:  Workers' compensation: utilization review


          SUMMARY:  Increases regulation of utilization review  
          organizations.  Specifically, this bill:  


          1)Prohibits an employer, or other entity conducting utilization  
            review on behalf of an employer, to offer or provide financial  
            incentives or other considerations to a reviewing physician  
            based on the number of modifications, delays or denials of  
            care.


          2)Empowers the Administrative Director (AD) of the Division of  
            Workers' Compensation (DWC) to review contracts between  
            employers or utilization review organizations and their  
            physician reviewers.


          3)Prohibits an insurer or third-party administrator from  
            referring a claim for review to a utilization review  
            organization in which it has a financial interest unless that  








                                                                     SB 563


                                                                    Page  2





            interest is disclosed to the employer.


          4)Provides that any information obtained by the AD relating to  
            these contracts is not subject to disclosure pursuant to the  
            Public Records Act, unless the AD determines that the  
            documents are otherwise in the public domain.


          EXISTING LAW:   


          1)Establishes a comprehensive system to provide benefits,  
            including medical treatment, to employees who are injured or  
            suffer conditions that arise out of or in the course of  
            employment.


          2)Provides that medical, surgical, chiropractic, acupuncture,  
            and hospital treatment (including nursing, medicines, medical  
            and surgical supplies, crutches) and apparatuses (including  
            orthotic and prosthetic devices and services) that is  
            reasonably required to cure or relieve the injured worker from  
            the effects of his or her injury shall be provided by the  
            employer.


          3)Requires that all employers create a utilization review (UR)  
            process, which is a process that prospectively,  
            retrospectively, or concurrently reviews and approves,  
            modifies, delays, or denies treatment recommendations by  
            physicians.


          4)Requires that each UR process be governed by written policies  
            and that these policies, and a description of the utilization  
            process, must be filed with the administrative director and  
            must be disclosed by the employer to employees, physicians,  
            and the public upon request.








                                                                     SB 563


                                                                    Page  3







          5)Provides that, in the event of a dispute over a UR decision on  
            or after July 1, 2014, all disputes must be submitted for  
            Independent Medical Review (IMR).


          FISCAL EFFECT:  According to the Senate Appropriations  
          Committee, the DIR indicates that it would incur first-year  
          costs of $600,000 and $575,000 ongoing (special fund) to  
          implement the provisions of the bill, a result of increased  
          auditing and legal workload.


          


          COMMENTS:  


          1)Purpose.  According to the author, physicians have been  
            concerned that the utilization review process might actually  
            incentivize the delay or denial of appropriate treatment for  
            injured workers.  The bill increases transparency and  
            accountability within the workers' compensation utilization  
            process to ensure persons involved in authorizing injured  
            worker medical care on behalf of the employer or payor are not  
            being inappropriately incentivized to delay, modify or deny  
            requests for medically necessary services. 


          2)Background.  In California's workers' compensation system, an  
            employer or insurer cannot deny treatment. When an employer or  
            insurer receives a request for medical treatment, it can  
            either approve the treatment or, if it believes that a  
            physician's request for treatment is medically unnecessary or  
            harmful, send the request to UR. 










                                                                     SB 563


                                                                    Page  4






          UR is the review process for medical treatment recommendations  
            by physicians to see if the request for medical treatment is  
            supported by evidence-based treatment guidelines. The full UR  
            process varies by vendor, but it generally involves initial  
            review by a non-physician (who can approve the request, but  
            not deny or modify it), with higher level review(s) being  
            conducted by a physician or physicians. Only a licensed  
            physician who is competent to evaluate the specific clinical  
            issues involved in the medical treatment services may modify,  
            delay, or deny a request for medical treatment.  If the UR  
            physician does modify, delay, or deny the medical treatment,  
            then the injured worker can appeal the decision to IMR, but  
            without the UR decision there cannot be an IMR decision.

          This process is triggered by the physician submitting a Request  
            for Authorization for Medical Treatment (RFA), which is a DWC  
            form where the physician details his or her diagnosis and  
            treatment, and must include an additional form which provides  
            a narrative and substantiates the need for treatment.  As was  
            discussed above, an employer or insurer cannot  contest or in  
            any way delay or deny treatment without sending the RFA  
            through UR.
          3)Public Records Act.  The bill authorizes the AD to review and  
            obtain proprietary contractual documents associated with  
            obtaining UR services.  As a result, the bill contains a  
            provision that expressly protects this proprietary material  
            from disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act (PRA).   
            This is a relatively common scenario - in order to ensure that  
            a regulator can review sensitive, proprietary documents of a  
            private party, protection against release of that private  
            information is provided.  


          4)Technical amendment.  The bill currently contains a minor  
            qualifier in the PRA language.  The author has agreed to  
            delete that language.  The amendment on page 4 will delete  
            lines 6-7, and in line 8 delete the language prior to the  
            period.








                                                                     SB 563


                                                                    Page  5







          











          REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:




          Support


          California Medical Association


          Medical Board of California (Board)




          Opposition


          None received




          Analysis Prepared by:Mark Rakich / INS. / (916)  








                                                                     SB 563


                                                                    Page  6





          319-2086