Purchase this story for only $7.99!
Add to CartFor access to all our articles, check out our subscription options.
Feb 5-7, 2025
February 5, 2025 – February 7, 2025. The Business Insurance World Captive Forum, established in 1 …
Mar 6-7, 2025
The California Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC) is pleased to announce that registration fo …
Mar 6 – Feb 7, 2025
The 2025 WCRI Issues & Research Conference is a leading workers' compensation forum bringing toget …
2 Comments
Log in to post a comment
Steve Cattolica Sep 4, 2024 a 1:51 pm PDT
Opponents of SB 636 miss the mark referring to the MTUS and its basis. There is no argument regarding that aspect of the UR system.
SB 636 builds appropriate medical accountability...accountability that is currently non-existent...into how the system is operated. Too often - and there is plenty of contemporary and historic evidence to back up the fact that - attorneys, adjusters, nurses and other lay people and third party MPNs illegally deny or delay care that is already approved.
Because they hold the purse strings, sometimes laypeople even deny approval of care found to be appropriate by the MTUS.
The system does not provide any recourse when this happens except a slow and convoluted IMR process that makes no allowance for adverse medical issues that may result.
In its opinion in the case of King v CompPartners, the California Supreme Court specifically asked the Legislature to reconsider the UR system it had legislated into existence because "it may not be working (as intended)." The Legislature has done so and it's now time to add an important level of accountability into that system as the Legislature has once again deemed necessary. If the system is working as well as we're told, this should be an easy lift.
Robin Schwebs Sep 4, 2024 a 1:52 pm PDT
about time I am tired of out of state "carpetbaggers" treating our clients as if they are beggars