BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                  AB 1059
                                                                  Page  1


          ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
          AB 1059 (Huffman)
          As amended May 27, 2011
          Majority vote 

           HEALTH              11-4        APPROPRIATIONS      12-5        
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Ayes:|Monning, Ammiano, Atkins, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield,     |
          |     |Bonilla, Eng, Gordon,     |     |Bradford, Charles         |
          |     |Hayashi,                  |     |Calderon, Campos, Davis,  |
          |     |Roger Hern�ndez,          |     |Gatto, Hall, Hill, Lara,  |
          |     |Mitchell, Pan, Williams   |     |Mitchell, Solorio         |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
          |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
          |Nays:|Logue, Garrick, Silva,    |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly,         |
          |     |Knight                    |     |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner    |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           SUMMARY  :  Requires the Director of the Department of Managed 
          Health Care (DMHC) to require a health care service plan (health 
          plan) to pay the provider the amount owed plus interest when the 
          Director makes a final determination that a health plan has 
          underpaid or failed to pay a provider in violation of applicable 
          provisions of the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 
          1975 (Knox-Keene), as specified.  Specifically,  this bill  :  

          1)Requires the DMHC Director, upon a final determination that a 
            health plan has underpaid or failed to pay a provider in 
            violation of Knox-Keene requirements, to require the health 
            plan to pay the provider an amount not less than the amount 
            owed plus interest.

          2)Permits the DMHC Director, if he or she determines that an 
            extraordinary circumstance exists, to require a provider to 
            resubmit a claim in order to receive payment, provided the 
            Director also requires the plan to add to the amount owed to 
            the provider a reasonable amount necessary to reimburse the 
            provider for the cost of resubmission.  Otherwise, prohibits a 
            provider from being required to resubmit a claim to a health 
            plan in order to receive payment. 

          3)Makes the remedies provided by this section not exclusive, and 
            permits them to be sought and employed in any combination with 








                                                                  AB 1059
                                                                  Page  2


            civil, criminal, and other administrative remedies deemed 
            warranted by the DMHC Director to enforce the provisions of 
            this bill.

          4)Requires the calculation of the amount of the penalty imposed 
            to be based on the date on which the plan committed the 
            violation.

          5)Prohibits a health plan from being required to pay a provider 
            more than the amount owed plus interest on a claim, and 
            permits DMHC to take into account any other payments that have 
            been made on that same claim.

          6)Prohibits a health plan from delegating a statutory liability 
            under this section.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  According to the Assembly Appropriations 
          Committee, potential for increased staffing costs to DMHC, 
          estimated in the range of $1-2 million (special fund) to review 
          and assess provider complaints, and for increased enforcement to 
          ensure that penalties are assessed and providers are paid 
          according to the provisions of this bill.  Staffing costs are 
          uncertain, due to unknown plan and provider behavior in response 
          to the bill's provisions.

           COMMENTS  :  According to the author, DMHC has consistently failed 
          to take enforcement actions against health maintenance 
          organizations (HMOs) that violate the law intended to protect 
          providers.  When it has taken action, the penalty amounts are 
          small in relation to the economic injury to physicians.  The 
          author further states that DMHC also has been intolerably slow 
          to address provider complaints, often refuses to apply 
          enforcement actions to cover the entire period of underpayment, 
          and has not required HMOs to pay physicians even after it has 
          determined payment should have been made.  Accordingly, HMOs 
          make economic decisions to violate the law, knowing that any 
          penalty amount that may be imposed will be outweighed by the 
          extra revenue the HMOs will generate by, for example, 
          underpaying for medical services in violation of the law.  
            
          AB 1455 (Scott), Chapter 827, Statutes of 2000, prohibits unfair 
          claims practices and the resulting regulations, which took 
          effect January 1, 2004, set forth detailed requirements that 
          plans must meet in processing and paying claims for both 








                                                                  AB 1059
                                                                  Page  3


          contracting and non-contracting providers.  On September 20, 
          2004, DMHC introduced a Provider Complaint Unit (PCU) which 
          eventually included an automated Web-portal to allow health care 
          providers to electronically submit claim reimbursement 
          complaints.  According to DMHC, through March 24 of this year, 
          the PCU received more than 5,400 complaints resulting in more 
          than $1.4 million in recovery payments to California doctors and 
          hospitals.  According to DMHC, PCU generally does not review 
          complaints related to whether a plan is appropriately paying 
          usual and customary charges for noncontracted providers but DMHC 
          is in the process of amending the existing payment criteria to 
          facilitate such review.

          In addition to recovering disputed payments for providers, DMHC 
          reports that through February of this year, the PCU levied more 
          than $650,000 in fines to plans which it determined had 
          improperly paid claims in violation of state law.  DMHC reports 
          that the fines include two fines totaling $350,000 against 
          Health Net in 2005 for making incorrect payments to emergency 
          doctors and contracted health care facilities, $200,000 against 
          Blue Cross for failing to properly pay interest and penalties on 
          late claims, and $50,000 against Blue Shield for making payments 
          directly to patients instead of providers.  

          DMHC has established a six-month pilot Independent Dispute 
          Resolution Process (IDRP) to afford non-contracted providers of 
          emergency hospital and physician services for HMO enrollees what 
          DMHC refers to as "a fast, fair, and cost effective way to 
          resolve claim payment disputes with health care service plans 
          and their capitated providers."  The Maximus Center for Health 
          Dispute Resolution (CHDR) has been selected by the DMHC to 
          conduct an independent review and render the decisions in 
          provider payment disputes during the pilot program.  The CHDR, a 
          nationally accredited health appeals organization, serves more 
          than 25 other states in the role of reviewer of appeals made by 
          health plan enrollees, as well as performing reviews for the 
          Federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.  By 
          submitting a claim dispute through the IDRP, the provider agrees 
          to not invoice, balance bill, or otherwise seek to collect any 
          payment from the health plan enrollee, except for applicable 
          co-payments and deductibles.  
           

          Analysis Prepared by  :    Teri Boughton / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097 








                                                                  AB 1059
                                                                  Page  4



                                                                 FN: 
                                                            0001115