Tag Archives: division of workers compensation

Laying the Foundation for Drug Formularies

When Texas announced an 80% drop in the cost of “N” drugs prescribed for new injuries, workers’ compensation stakeholders took notice. (Medications designated as “N” in the Official Disability Guidelines are not appropriate for first-line therapy.)

Since that announcement, the implementation of a closed formulary has placed near the top of the list on several state legislative agendas. While the results being reported out of Texas are still fairly recent, the concept of a closed formulary is not a new idea in that state. Although changes in Texas’ work comp medical cost trends appear sudden, the process for achieving these was anything but.

When HB 7 was passed in 2005, it created the Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC) within the Texas Department of Insurance and, among other things, authorized “evidence-based, scientifically valid and outcome-focused” medical treatment guidelines and a closed formulary for prescription medications. These steps, along with the existing preauthorization and dispute-resolution processes, provided the solid regulatory infrastructure needed to implement a successful closed formulary.

The Texas Closed Formulary (TCF) requires preauthorization for medications identified as “N” drugs in the current edition of the Work Loss Data Institute’s Official Disability Guidelines (ODG). These guidelines are updated on a monthly basis to encompass new medications and new research surrounding current medications. The TCF excludes not only “N” drugs but also any compound medication that contains an “N” drug, as well as experimental drugs that are not yet broadly accepted as the prevailing standard of care.

Naturally, implementing these requirements would mean a substantial change in prescribing habits. (That was the point.) The problem was that immediate and strict implementation could mean that injured workers were suddenly denied previously prescribed medications without allowing proper time for weaning. To counter this problem, the DWC created a “legacy period” during which older claims would not yet be subject to the closed formulary, even while providers had to comply with formulary requirements when treating newly injured patients. This approach allowed providers to adapt to the new preauthorization requirements and adjust their treating habits over time in existing claims. At the same time, it ensured formulary compliance from the outset in new claims.

After the conclusion of the two-year legacy period, all claims became subject to the TCF. In effect, this legacy period was a compromise that allowed Texas to begin implementing the TCF in all of its claims without hurting patients already on long-term prescription therapy.

The first (and, to date, only) state to attempt to replicate the Texas model was Oklahoma. Oklahoma followed the Texas model closely and, in some places, added improvements. For example, while the TCF excludes all compound medications containing an “N” drug, Oklahoma’s closed formulary excludes all compound drugs, regardless of ingredients.

Unfortunately, there are also some drawbacks – the main one being limited application. Because the Oklahoma Closed Formulary is contained within the rules for Oklahoma’s new Workers’ Compensation Commission, it applies only to those cases within the commission’s jurisdiction. The commission has jurisdiction over all claims with a date of injury from Feb. 1, 2014, on. Older claims are handled by the Workers’ Compensation Court of Existing Claims, which has no closed formulary provision. This means that a doctor treating a worker who was injured on Jan. 31, 2014, and another who was injured on Feb. 1, 2014, will only have to abide by evidence-based treatment guidelines for the second worker.

While Oklahoma has adopted medical treatment guidelines and taken steps to require preauthorization, these requirements are relatively new within the Oklahoma workers’ compensation system. As a result, providers, patients and payers are still adjusting to the new system, and there has been a fair amount of confusion.

Implementing a successful closed formulary does not happen overnight. Texas started the process 10 years ago and has been consistently working to ensure that its reforms were successful. After taking the time to establish the necessary regulatory infrastructure, adopt treatment guidelines and create a logical solution to ensure a unified standard of care issue across all claims, the state is finally seeing clinical and economic benefits.

As Arkansas, California, North Carolina, Tennessee and other states start thinking about replicating the results of Texas by implementing their own closed drug formularies, they would do well to have conversations about these principles first.

This article was originally posted at: WorkCompWire.

A Key Ruling on Workers’ Comp in California—and What It Means

The workers' compensation community watched anxiously for months as the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California considered a constitutional challenge to the lien activation fee — an important component of the 2012 reforms in Senate Bill 863. In the case (Angelotti Chiropractic, et al. v. Christine Baker, et al.), Judge George Wu ruled on Nov. 12 that the fee is indeed unconstitutional based on the Equal Protection provisions of the U.S. Constitution. His reasoning was that there was no rational basis for exempting large institutional lien holders (health care plans, union trusts, etc.) from the activation fee and that all lien claimants should either be in or out when it comes to filing fees.

The injunction against enforcing the lien activation fee took effect on Nov. 19. In anticipation, the Division of Workers’ Compensation notified the community Nov. 15 that it would no longer be requiring the fee be paid for liens filed prior to Jan. 1, 2013.

It is important to note that there are two filing fees enacted in SB 863. The one that applies to liens filed prior to Jan. 1, 2013, is the lien activation fee and is the subject of the federal lawsuit. The other is the lien filing fee, which is not affected by this litigation. In addition, statutory and regulatory changes made in SB 863 and the regulations adopted by the Division of Workers’ Compensation eliminate liens for most service providers that are subject to a fee schedule for dates of service on and after Jan. 1, 2013.

That is not to say that the injunction against enforcement of the activation fee is inconsequential, for it most certainly is not. In the last two calendar quarters of 2012 alone, more than 800,000 liens were filed. Of those, almost two-thirds are in Los Angeles County. Most of these have not moved through the system, undoubtedly because some lien claimants were waiting to see whether the activation fee was going to be upheld. It is assumed that many of these liens were never going to be filed because of the activation fee. As such, many liens would have expired by operation of law on Jan. 1, 2014. That, too, is now part of the unknown that comes from the Court’s decision.

Obviously, the Department of Industrial Relations and claims administrators are not happy with this ruling. To a certain extent, neither are the plaintiffs in the case, who saw two of their three claims summarily dismissed by the court. Whether these issue now go up to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals remains to be seen. Plaintiffs, and indeed all lien claimants regardless of whether they were parties, have secured the relief they sought – enjoining the activation fee—but that could be put at risk if there is an appeal. Conversely, while the Department of Industrial Relations disagrees with the finding that the activation fee is unconstitutional, the fact that Judge Wu dismissed the claim that the activation fee constituting a “taking” of private property is a big win for proponents of SB 863 – for the taking argument has much broader implications than does the Equal Protection argument that Judge Wu found persuasive.

Because the Jan. 1, 2014, dismissal by operation of law date on old liens has been enjoined, it is not automatic that there will be a flood of activity on liens filed before Jan. 1, 2013, at the Appeals Board before year end. It is a fair observation, however, that liens many in the community thought would be extinguished by operation law won’t be. Whether those liens are going to be the subject of Appeals Board hearings and ultimately paid, however, remains uncertain. And uncertainty is a chronic symptom of our oft-ill but rarely cured workers’ compensation system.

And in case no one noticed, on Nov. 14 a new federal lawsuit was filed challenging both the lien activation fee and the lien filing fee. The plaintiff, who is seeking class action certification, is also demanding disgorgement of fees paid and reinstatement of any lien dismissed for failure to pay the appropriate fee. That case is Kancilia v. Brown, et al. and was filed in a different federal district court than Angelotti.

The transition from one set of rules to another on the heels of major legislative changes is never easy, regardless of the subject matter. In time, because of the other changes wrought by SB 863, the disruption caused by these suits will work its way through the system. Relief from the costs associated with the lien process will be delayed, and the income the fees provide to the Division of Workers’ Compensation will be less than anticipated, but ultimately the lien problem will be solved – just later than most had hoped.

The Real Challenge for Reforming Workers’ Comp

Sifting through the claims and complaints of those involved in California’s complex workers’ compensation system could leave both the casual observer and the seasoned veteran wondering when, if ever, this multibillion-dollar program will ever get properly aligned. It would be fairly easy to say, “Not during our lifetime.” But that would be too cynical even when discussing a system that for the past several decades could easily invoke cynicism.

Every participant in workers’ compensation has two faces. Some employers provide benefits, have a compliant return to work program and enforce a culture of safety at the workplace, while other employers view employees as a necessary evil. These latter employers view adherence with the legion of local, state, and federal laws and regulations regarding the workplace as burdens that need only be acknowledged if employers are required to do so, generally in the form of a legal proceeding against them.

We have seen the abuses in the medical system from unnecessary surgeries, overuse of Schedule II medications, and downright fraud in billing insurers and other payers, and yet if there is one indispensable party in the workers’ compensation system beyond labor and management it is medical providers. As recent events have demonstrated, we have yet to figure out how to empower the noble practitioners of the healing arts while keeping the venal away from injured workers.

Claims administrators vary in expertise, motivation, and professionalism, as do the various service providers and the tactics they employ to provide services and collect fees. “Insurers” have borne an unfair brunt of criticism largely because it is an easier talking point to cast such a broad brush than to single out any one bad actor or group of them. Without the ability to transfer risk, however, the workers’ compensation system could never be sustainable.

Each system participant has a particular grudge against the others. We allow policyholders to sue insurers for claims handling practices, and, in far narrower circumstances, an injured worker may pierce exclusive remedy and sue a claims administrator when conduct is so egregious that it goes beyond the grand bargain that is at the core of workers’ compensation.  Periodically, claims administrators and service providers resort to the civil courts with a variety of complaints over unfair business practices.  And, of course, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board is the forum where all participants flock with even the slightest provocation.

The appellate courts weigh in on a wide range of benefit delivery challenges, as well. Their decisions in Guzman and Ogilvie were two of the main incidents inciting changes in permanent disability benefit determinations codified in Senate Bill 863 (De León). Even today, we are litigating issues over the apportionment changes brought about in Senate Bill 899 (Poochigian) enacted almost a decade ago. Litigation in federal court is rare, although not unprecedented, as the current challenge to the lien activation fee in SB 863 demonstrates.   State-imposed fee schedules have periodically worked their way into federal court on the theory that reimbursement rates are so low that they are confiscatory – a challenge unlikely in California while the fee schedule is not mandatory, but still possible given the breadth of authority that the Division of Workers’ Compensation has been given to develop fee schedules for virtually all service providers.

“Well, that’s just California workers’ comp.”  That may be the case, but such resignation does tend to take the focus away from core problems that magnify the multiple personality disorder that plagues this system. As we work our way through the implementation of SB 863, we must also recognize that not every solution to the high cost of comp, both in dollar and human terms, can be put down on paper in Sacramento or Oakland.

While compliance is part of best practices, it does not define them exclusively. To be sure, the new costs associated with complying with SB 863 are consequential. As is inevitably the case when new comprehensive workers’ compensation laws are enacted, there will be considerable friction moving from one set of rules to another. The threat of litigation will hang over the changes made in this legislation just as it has in prior iterations of reform. It will take years to sort this all out.

In the meantime, there is much work to be done to improve the system even if it is not in  reaction to a new law or regulation or judicial decision. As has been the case all too often over the past two decades, laws are driven by anecdote. The adage “bad facts make bad law” applies equally to the legislative, regulatory, and judicial processes. Navigating California’s complex system is never easy. If claims administrators expect the process by which laws are made and interpreted to provide the necessary clarity and simplicity we crave to do our jobs, then we are all sadly mistaken.

Yet, when we commit to best practices both as employers and claims professionals, we can create better outcomes than Sacramento could ever hope to achieve. The challenge, therefore, is not what legislators or regulators or justices will do for us, but rather what will we do for ourselves?

The Rest Of The Story: In Defense Of Liens And Good Faith Negotiation

In late February 2013, the Audit Unit of the California Division of Workers Compensation provided a newsline release which dealt with good faith negotiations and liens. The release stated:

The Audit Unit of the Division of Workers' Compensation has received an increasing number of complaints from individuals and entities providing services on a lien basis in workers' compensation claims. The complainants report that some payors have adopted a policy of refusing to discuss negotiating the provider's liens until the provider of the services demonstrates it has filed a lien with the WCAB and paid the applicable lien filing or activation fee required by the enactment of SB 863. Such a policy is both unsupported by the plain language of Labor Code sections 4903.05 or 4903.06, and directly contrary to the legislative intent of those sections and existing law.

If a claims administrator has reasonable grounds to contend that nothing is owed, then good faith negotiation does not necessarily require an offer of compromise. In the absence of a good faith contention that nothing is owed, however, a refusal to negotiate prior to payment of the filing fee would not be in good faith.

Additionally, Title 8, California Code of Regulations, section 10109(e) mandates that “[a]ll Insurers, self-insured employers and third-party administrators shall deal fairly and in good faith with all claimants, including lien claimants.”

Title 8 California Code of Regulations, section 10250(b) requires a moving party state under penalty of perjury that the moving party has made a genuine good faith effort to resolve the dispute before filing the Declaration of Readiness (DOR). Forcing a provider to file a lien and pay the filing or activation fee before the payor will discuss informal resolution of their billing amount prevents the provider from complying with this mandate. Such conduct could expose the payor to the imposition of sanctions, attorney's fees and costs under Labor Code section 5813. This practice also exposes the payor to audit penalties for violation of Title 8, California Code of Regulations, section 10109(e). As is the Audit Unit's existing practice, the Audit Unit will review all complaints received about this practice during the next random or targeted audit of any payor about whom such a complaint has been received.

This release has prompted quite a bit of commentary. Most have discussed the impact the directive will have on the ongoing lien problem that plagues the Workers' Compensation system in California as a whole. Many comment on the sins of the defense-side of the system. Shortly after I read this release, I read a blog update from David DePaolo, President and CEO of WCCentral. If you do not read Mr. DePaolo's blog or his updates, I would encourage you to do so. They are excellent reading. In his blog article, he stated that the Division of Workers Compensation has finally listened to the various lien claimant representatives who are complaining that the defense is not negotiating in good faith with them when they contact examiners regarding their liens. He had previously written a blog on what he argued was “despicable behavior.”

I acknowledge that there are claims examiners and other support staff who may not deal in good faith when it comes to liens. However, does the blame for the inability or refusal to negotiate in good faith fall solely at the feet of the defendant? As a former claims examiner, I would loudly proclaim, “No!” There are two sides to the story. It is time to examine both.

SB 863 brought back a common sense approach to liens. Lien claimants can no longer simply paper a defendant with a green (or any other color) lien sheet and “claim” a lien is filed. They now must demonstrate they are a proper lien claimant by paying a filing fee to activate new or existing liens, and prove to both the payor (defendant) and the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board that they are justified in their demands for the time needed to negotiate.

Further, as the Torres decision states, they must also prove up their lien and assertion that the recovery they are seeking is due and proper. I would also argue that the Torres decision shed some light on one of the biggest challenges to negotiating liens: a lack of solid proof provided by the lien claimant. I believe it was the intent of SB 863 to take large steps to end frivolous lien filings and lien practices that clog every Workers' Compensation Appeals Board across the State.

The Division of Workers Compensation claims that requiring a lien to be filed and activation fee to be paid before lien negotiations commence is contrary to the plain language of Labor Code § 4903.5 and § 4903.6, as well as the legislative intent behind those sections and existing law. These sections deal with time frames and a statute of limitations for lien claimants to file their liens. They also protect the injured worker from the underlying obligation to pay for the service if a lien is not properly filed.

In my reading of these Labor Code sections, nowhere do I see an obligation for the defendant to address liens without a proper filing, as they can pay their fee well before the requirement to file a Declaration of Readiness is completed. In fact, these sections specifically require the lien claimant to adhere to the requirements of filing and proof of the same. SB 863 instructs the lien claimant to activate a lien by paying the fee.

The Division of Workers Compensation also states that a requirement to pay the activation fee prevents the lien claimants from negotiating in good faith prior to filing for a hearing. How does requiring the payment of a lien fee prevent the lien claimants from later asserting they could not negotiate in good faith prior to filing a Declaration of Readiness? I would argue that the filing fee lets the defendant know that the lien claimant is a proper party to the action. The lien claimant is not required to pay the filing fee at the same time the Declaration of Readiness is filed. The Division of Workers Compensation appears to indicate otherwise. Lien claimants have every opportunity to file their activation fee and then negotiate with the defendant over genuine disputes regarding payment and services.

We must also remember that SB 863 placed safeguards for lien claimants to recover filing fees as well as interest. They simply need to make a demand 30 days prior to filing a Declaration of Readiness. If the defendant fails to respond within 20 days and the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board and/or arbitrator eventually awards the amount of the original demand or more, they will be able to collect. Therefore, it appears the intent of the legislature was to hold both the lien claimant and the defendant accountable for good faith actions.

The lien claimant acts in good faith by paying a filing fee to activate their lien and then make a good faith demand. The defendant then has the responsibility of addressing the demand and negotiating in good faith, or pay the price for the failure to do so. I would add that the Division of Workers Compensation requires that a lien claimant file their activation fee and show proof of payment prior to the filing of a Declaration of Readiness, or by the date of the lien conference if they are not the party who filed for the hearing. See instructions at http://www.dir.ca.gov/dwc/liens.htm.

We have already seen a host of cases where lien claimants were dismissed for failure to show proof of their activation payment either at the time they filed the Declaration of Readiness or alternatively, prior to the hearing. However, we have also seen instances where the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board allows lien claimants to file on the morning of the hearing, even when the lien claimant was the party who filed the Declaration of Readiness. Why are we asserting a lien filing fee under SB 863 if we are permitting lien claimants to file and then argue on the day of court they are in “compliance” because on the morning of, or immediately prior to the hearing, they paid their filing fee?

Greg Jones of www.workcompcentral.com recently published statistics on the surge in liens filed in the latter half and most notably, the final quarter of 2012. His article stated that the largest unknown is how many of the liens filed will be “activated” and what the impact of the filing fee has on liens. Recall for liens filed after 1/1/13, the $150 activation fee applies. For liens filed before 1/1/13, it is $100. In both instances, the fees do not have to be filed until the matter is addressed at a hearing, or as late as 1/1/14. That allows for up to an entire year of negotiations on what would be considered an “inactive” lien. I see the mass filings in 2012 as evidence that lien claimants do not wish to process the filing fee. At the same time, they demand the defendants deal with them regardless of whether or not their liens are active.

I believe there were good intentions behind the Division of Workers Compensation's mandate. They are letting everyone know that negotiation during the claims process benefits everyone. And, it will help relieve the unbearable pressure the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board presently faces from dealing with an endless sea of liens. That being said, defendants should consider exactly what “good faith” really means, and how certain scenarios could result in a different number of conversations. I can assure you that your definition and the definition of most lien representatives will be different.

With all of this in mind, let us discuss specific scenarios and recommendations.

  1. Negotiation during active treatment: I would argue that unless the case has been settled and the treatment is future medical in nature, or if the lien claimant can document they will not treat the applicant again, the lien cannot be addressed. Some examples would be certain diagnostic testing, former physical therapy locations, or prior treating physicians.
  2. Future treatment: If you are negotiating prior to the resolution of the claim, ensure that the lien claimant will not be providing treatment in the future if at all possible. It makes no sense to deal with a new lien from the same lien claimant.
  3. MPN arguments: If the treatment is based on non-MPN care, and if you can establish a proper Medical Provider Network was in place and proper notices were provided, litigate the Medical Provider Network issue as soon as possible. Prior to medical-legal evaluations and prior to the lien drastically expanding in size, as we know it will.
  4. Petitions vs. liens: Certain groups such as copy services and interpreters, are arguing that a Petition for Costs is appropriate for their services. This is an ongoing issue that will require further litigation. At minimum, I would argue that if this is asserted after the case in chief has resolved, they are too late to assert the Petition as one of the parties (i.e. the applicant) has resolved their portion of the claim.
  5. Claims notes: Document your files and claims notes often. Make your arguments clear and understandable. Claims notes can be used as evidence if needed. Also document calls when you leave a message.
  6. Appeals: If a lien claimant is arguing fee schedule with you, ask them to submit their bill and supporting documentation, with a proof of service, for an appeal of the claims administrator's prior findings. The appeal will either generate new money for the provider, or firm up your argument that nothing is owed.
  7. Zero dollars: If you truly believe nothing further is owed, it is not bad faith to assert the same. You paid per fee schedule. There is a Medical Provider Network issue. They have not proven their services were reasonable, approved, or rendered. The list is endless. The key is to document your case for $0.00 recovery and make sure your foundation actually exists.
  8. Help your cause: Provide your attorney with all Explanations of Benefits during administration of the claim and after the case has settled. Provide them with any and all objection letters and involve them in the ongoing objection and negotiation process. Your attorney will need these to negotiate in good faith.
  9. Aggressive representation: Make sure your attorney is aggressive. It may surprise you to know that the many providers use the same representatives to handle Workers' Compensation Appeals Board matters. Your attorney likely deals with a few people time and time again. They remember the aggressive attorney who knows their file. Additionally, make sure your counsel is not too cozy with them. They can be polite and friendly. Your attorney should never speak ill of their client, or their position.
  10. Make them prove their case: Require the lien claimant serve you with all of their supporting documentation, not simply a bill and a report. If they intend on relying upon case law, statute, “usual and customary” arguments, or anything else, ask them to submit it to you prior to negotiation. They will ask the same thing from you. See the Torres decision.
  11. Assignments: Make sure the lien claimant or representative has complied with the rules regarding assignment. If they have not properly notified the parties of the assignment of the lien (or multiple assignments) a recommendation to dismiss the lien should be made at the time of hearing.
  12. Pick your date and time: The Division of Workers Compensation requires you negotiate in good faith. However, there is no requirement that negotiations must occur every day at any time. Many of my clients designate one or two days out of the week to devote to liens. In my opinion, this is acceptable, as long as you are actively answering the phone, or responding to a fax or email.
  13. Verify: If a lien claimant states that they have filed their lien activation payment, request it to verify. You are not asking for the lien filing fee to be paid. You are merely asking for verification to determine if a lack of filing fee will be an issue at the time of the hearing.
  14. Release the small fish: Resolving the very minor liens during the claims adjusting process will often make your outlook appear brighter. As the lien list shrinks to only a handful of large lien holders, the final lien process will seem more palatable.

I predict that an increasing number of lien claimants will assert that bad faith actions are taking place, even during active negotiations. Do not be afraid to assert that nothing more is owed if you have complied with bill review and timely payment, if your Medical Provider Network is secure, or if your arguments are sound. Otherwise, pick up the phone and talk.

Napoleon's Corporal And The Implementation Of Senate Bill 863

SB 863 was passed on the last day of August 2012. It is the largest and most comprehensive change to the California workers compensation system since April 2004 when SB 899 passed.

To make sure that the new law is implemented properly, the California Division of Workers Compensation and the Workers Compensation Appeals Board have both promulgated extensive regulations. Some of the regulations, by their nature, were considered “emergency” and were approved by OAL on December 31.

Because of the extensive impact of the various articles in the legislation, there will be ongoing regulatory efforts at least through the first six months of this year.

I strongly encourage all claims operations to review these regulations and provide their insight, thoughts, and comments on a timely basis to the Division of Workers Compensation. You can find all of the regulations on the California Department of Industrial Relations web site or the California Division of Workers Compensation web site.

Implementing SB 863
On the front lines there are many legitimate questions, such as:

  • How much of the new law applies to my existing cases?
  • If I have started Permanent Disability (PD) advances, and if the employee has returned to his/her regular work, do I still need to advance Permanent Disability?
  • What is Independent Medical Review (IMR)?
  • How will I pay for the Independent Medical Review evaluation?
  • Under what circumstances will I have to use Independent Medical Review?
  • What happens if I have an old case and the applicant attorney claims a sleep disorder?
  • What are the new ways to rate Permanent Disability?
  • What happens if the lien holders have not paid their lien filing fee?

To assist with helping claims operations and claims departments implementing the new law, I have provided an SB 863 Implementation and Survival Guide, organized by Mark Webb. It is intended to assist claims operations in the day-to-day implementation of SB863.

The original wording of the bill can be viewed here.

Napoleon's Corporal
Napoleon Bonaparte conquered most of Europe and North Africa. Many do not know the inside story of why he was a successful a military leader. One reason was his unique and extensive use of cannon. However he also had a secret weapon … His advantage was his use of a corporal.

Napoleon realized that war was a complex endeavor. When his generals outlined the battle plan, he had a random corporal assigned to shine his boots. After the plan was explained to Napoleon, he would look down at the corporal and ask if he understood the plan. If the corporal (who had been listening to the explanation of the plan) understood, Napoleon would then authorize the attack. However if the corporal was confused or did not understand the plan, then Napoleon had his generals re-do the plan to simplify it.

Napoleon understood that it was his front line that needed to execute the battle plan. If the plan was confusing, the front line would not be successful.

I recommend that this concept be considered when implementing SB863.

Here are some additional comments and observations on developing claim procedures to implement SB 863:

  • Usually the best and the brightest are used to develop procedures in claims departments. That does not always result in simple processes. This is because the focus is usually only on compliance with the new laws (which does not include simplifying the existing processes or the new process).
  • When the claims departments are developing their policies, rules and procedures, front line claims assistants and examiners should be included in the development of the processes and should also review the proposed plans to determine if they can be understood and implemented.
  • Unfortunately many times the new procedures result in processes that reflect the axiom “we have always done it this way.” Include folks who think “out of the box” and allow their voices to be heard.
  • SB 863 will result in major changes within the claims offices procedures and claims handling. Now is the time to take advantage of the change and embrace the change rather than to resist the change.
  • The focus on implementation should be: Benefit provision, Compliance, Cost Savings, Simplification, Documentation, Training.
  • For many claims adjusters, this will be the third system that they will be working with (Pre-899, 899 and 863).
  • Segregating claims by system may help but is not a panacea (because many of the provisions of SB863 apply to all existing claims).
  • Claims systems will also have to be changed. Limitations of some of the claims systems will result in problematic work-around procedures for awhile.
  • Sometimes working out a manual process first allows one to identify efficiencies. Do not be afraid to use a manual process for awhile (as the bugs are worked out).
  • Regular reviews of the implementation team specifically focused on simplification are productive.
  • The team should have a dedicated focus on the new law's cost-saving provisions.
  • The team should keep track of its costs and also develop an analysis of costs of implementing the laws.
  • The new laws may change the claims staffing model.
  • Third Party Administrators should notify their customers of the potential increased costs (Permanent Disability, for example) and also projected savings (lien reduction and resolution).
  • Third Party Administrators should review their contracts with their customers to determine if the changes in the laws impact their current pricing models and are best for their clients and for their success.
  • Bill review vendors and Utilization Review companies both have major changes to implement.
  • Special Investigations Units and Fraud Reporting have new issues to report because of the increased conflict of interest provisions in the law. Include the Special Investigations Unit as part of the implementation team.
  • I recommend an implementation team include: A senior claims executive, a senior claims supervisor, a claims examiner, a claims assistant, a bill specialist, a hearing representative, a finance person, a claims system expert, an attorney who knows the new law, and a person who is responsible for documenting the discussions, processes and procedures.
  • Training of the entire staff will take more than just one meeting and more than one month. Assume that there will be a need for re-training on a regular basis for the first nine months.