BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1410|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 1410
Author: Hernandez (D)
Amended: 8/20/12
Vote: 21
SENATE HEALTH COMMITTEE : 6-3, 4/11/12
AYES: Hernandez, Alquist, De Le�n, DeSaulnier, Rubio, Wolk
NOES: Harman, Anderson, Blakeslee
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-2, 5/24/12
AYES: Kehoe, Alquist, Lieu, Price, Steinberg
NOES: Walters, Dutton
SENATE FLOOR : 25-13, 5/30/12
AYES: Alquist, Calderon, Corbett, Correa, De Le�n,
DeSaulnier, Evans, Hancock, Hernandez, Kehoe, Leno, Lieu,
Liu, Lowenthal, Negrete McLeod, Padilla, Pavley, Price,
Rubio, Simitian, Steinberg, Vargas, Wolk, Wright, Yee
NOES: Anderson, Berryhill, Blakeslee, Cannella, Dutton,
Emmerson, Fuller, Gaines, Harman, Huff, La Malfa,
Walters, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Runner, Strickland
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 77-2, 8/27/12 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Independent medical review
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill modifies the external Independent
CONTINUED
SB 1410
Page
2
Medical Review (IMR) process established for individuals
enrolled in health plan products licensed by the Department
of Managed Health Care (DMHC) and insureds of health
insurance policies licensed by the Department of Insurance
(DOI) by enhancing requirements of clinical reviewers, and
requesting additional patient demographic information.
Assembly Amendments makes the existing IMR framework
inoperative on July 1, 2015, and as of January 1, 2016, is
repealed, unless a later enacted statute deletes or extends
it.
ANALYSIS : Existing law:
1.Requires the licensing and regulation of health care
service plans (health plans) by the DMHC, and requires
the licensing and regulation of health insurers by DOI.
2.Requires DMHC and DOI to establish an IMR system under
which an enrollee or insured must seek an external IMR
whenever health care services have been denied, modified,
or delayed by a health plan or insurer (collectively
"carriers") and the enrollee or insured has previously
filed a grievance that remains unresolved after 30 days.
3.Requires medical professionals selected by an IMR
organization to review medical treatment decisions to
meet certain minimum requirements, including that he or
she be a clinician knowledgeable in the treatment of the
patient's medical condition, knowledgeable about the
proposed treatment, and familiar with guidelines and
protocols in the area of treatment under review.
4.Requires DMHC and DOI to adopt the determination of an
IMR organization as binding on the health plan or
insurer.
5.Requires the IMR decisions to be made freely available,
on request, to the public, and requires certain
information to be removed from the decision before it is
made available to the public, including the name of the
carrier.
The bill makes the existing IMR framework inoperative on
CONTINUED
SB 1410
Page
3
July 1, 2015, and as of January 1, 2016, is repealed,
unless a later enacted statute deletes or extends it, and
establishes a new framework revised as follows on July 1,
2015:
1.Requires the notification from each department to the
enrollee or insured regarding the disposition of the
enrollee's or insured's grievance to include a section
designed to collect information on the enrollee's
ethnicity, race, and primary language spoken that
includes both of the following:
A statement of intent indicating that the
information is used for statistics only, in order to
ensure that all enrollees get the best care possible;
and
A statement indicating that providing this
information is optional and will not affect the IMR
process in any way.
1.Modifies minimum requirements of medical professionals
selected to review medical treatment decisions to require
a clinician expert in the treatment of the enrollee's
medical condition and knowledgeable about the proposed
treatment through recent or current actual clinical
experience treating patients with the same or similar
medical conditions as the enrollee.
2.Specifies requirements for the database and that the
database be accompanied by:
The annual rate of IMR among the total enrolled or
insured population;
The annual rate of IMR review cases by health plan
or health insurer;
The number, type, and resolution of IMR cases by
health plan or health insurer; and
The number, type, and resolution of IMR cases by
ethnicity, race, and primary language spoken.
CONTINUED
SB 1410
Page
4
Background
Types of IMR cases . California's IMR provides for
independent, external review of three main types of
disputed carrier decisions: medical necessity,
urgent/emergency care, and experimental/investigational.
Medical necessity IMR cases occur when carriers deny,
modify, or delay requests for coverage of services in whole
or in part due to findings that the services are not
medically necessary. Medical necessity decisions are
distinguished from coverage decisions, which are reviewed
directly by DMHC and DOI rather than through IMR. Both
covered benefits and medical necessity are defined
contractually and vary among carriers. According to
existing law, a medical necessity decision regarding a
disputed health care service relates to the practice of
medicine and is not a coverage decision, while a coverage
decision means the approval or denial of health care
services based on a finding that the provision of a health
care service is included or excluded as a covered benefit
under the terms of a health carrier contract. Carriers
categorize their decisions as medical necessity or coverage
decisions, but DMHC and DOI have the final authority as to
how disputed decisions will be categorized and appealed.
Urgent or emergency care IMR cases are for services already
received, when a carrier decides that the services did not
require urgent care and that the patient should have known
that an emergency did not exist even if a provider deemed
the services to be medically necessary.
Experimental or investigational IMR cases occur when
carriers deny coverage of services for patients on the
basis that the disputed service is considered experimental
or investigational by the carrier. In order for a patient
to have access to IMR under these circumstances:
The patient must have a life-threatening or seriously
debilitating condition;
The patient's physician must certify that the patient has
a condition for which standard services have not been
effective or medically appropriate, or for which there is
CONTINUED
SB 1410
Page
5
no more beneficial standard service covered by the plan
than the one proposed;
The patient's physician must have recommended or the
patient or physician must have requested a service which,
based on medical and scientific evidence, is likely to be
more beneficial than services that are standardly
available;
The carrier must have denied coverage of the service; and
The service would be a covered benefit except for the
carrier's decision that it is experimental or
investigational.
Prior Legislation
AB 55 (Migden), Chapter 533, Statutes of 1999, created the
IMR system and requires every health carrier to provide
those receiving coverage from these products with an
opportunity to seek an IMR whenever health care services
have been denied, modified, or delayed in cases where a
carrier deems the services to be medically unnecessary.
SB 189 (Schiff), Chapter 542, Statutes of 1999, established
an IMR process for experimental or investigational
therapies; requires the contracting of impartial,
independent, accredited entities for the purposes of the
IMR process; and amends the internal grievance processes of
carriers.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
One-time costs of about $100,000 and ongoing costs of
about $100,000 to revise the existing database by the
Department of Managed Health Care (Managed Care Fund).
One-time costs of about $460,000 and ongoing costs of
about $100,000 to revise the existing database system by
the Department of Insurance (Insurance Fund).
CONTINUED
SB 1410
Page
6
Ongoing costs of about $200,000 per year to collect and
analyze additional data by the Department of Insurance
(Insurance Fund).
Ongoing costs of about $200,000 per year to collect and
analyze additional data by the Department of Managed
Health Care (Managed Care Fund).
Ongoing costs in the low hundreds of thousands for the
operation of the independent medical review process due
to increased standards for reviewer experience (Managed
Care Fund and Insurance Fund).
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/28/12)
BayBio
BIOCOM
California Healthcare Institute
California Orthopaedic Association
California Pan-Ethnic Health Network
California Psychiatric Association
Neuropathy Action Foundation
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The California Pan-Ethnic Health
Network writes in support of this bill and its requirement
for DMHC and DOI to collaborate on a more complete and
standardized database of IMR cases, arguing that the bill
will allow for more effective program use and oversight by
consumers, carriers, regulators, and policymakers by
facilitating stronger assessments of IMR use and better
outcomes for all Californians including communities of
color. The California Psychiatric Association (CPA) writes
that by increasing the standards for clinicians to
participate as reviewers, this bill continues the quest for
quality in the delivery of managed health care services,
and for helping safeguard the rights of patients to have
access to the very best, most appropriate medical care.
The CPA additionally recommends that a reviewer should be a
physician who is board certified or qualified to be
board-eligible in the medical specialty which is the
predominant field within which a particular treatment
expertise is bestowed. The Neuropathy Action Foundation
writes that this bill is especially important because it
strengthens the minimum standard for reviewers to
CONTINUED
SB 1410
Page
7
participate in an IMR case. The California Healthcare
Institute argues in support of the bill that by requiring
IMR to be conducted by a clinician with expertise in the
enrollee's medical condition, This bill ensures that
patients receive the most appropriate treatment when
coverage is initially denied. BIOCOM writes that this bill
would significantly strengthen IMR by ensuring that
reviewers are well versed in both the condition in question
and current treatment options, thus providing a vital check
to ensure that consumers have access to quality medical
care.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 77-2, 8/27/12
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall,
Bill Berryhill, Block, Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford,
Brownley, Buchanan, Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos,
Carter, Cedillo, Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Davis, Dickinson,
Eng, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes, Beth Gaines,
Galgiani, Garrick, Gatto, Gordon, Gorell, Grove, Hagman,
Halderman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Roger Hern�ndez, Hill,
Huber, Hueso, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Lara,
Logue, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mansoor, Mendoza, Miller,
Mitchell, Monning, Nestande, Nielsen, Norby, Olsen, Pan,
Perea, V. Manuel P�rez, Portantino, Silva, Skinner,
Smyth, Solorio, Swanson, Torres, Valadao, Wagner,
Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, John A. P�rez
NOES: Donnelly, Morrell
NO VOTE RECORDED: Furutani
CTW:n 8/28/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED