Our office, designated to do a panel qualified medical evaluation, ran into a plethora of unexpected complications on a recent case.

Robert Weinmann

Various involved parties were worried, for example, about the assigned date. They were fearful of travel, time spent in any doctor's office where a previous coronavirus patient might have been, and the unpredictability of the virus itself.

Parties expressing trepidation included medical office staff, persons who might be asked to do diagnostic testing such as imaging studies, or legal staff who might have to deal with a client who had just been to a medical office where somebody else might have left a viral particle.

Lawyers' offices, saddled with their clients' medical-legal problems, now also worried about exposure of their clients and their own legal staff to a novel virus known to have the ability to cause death.

In all cases, front office persons were worried about their own exposure. What to do?

Here's what we did: All the parties were called. It turned out that the patient was willing to reschedule to a date that might be safer. His attorney was agreeable and so was defense. The adjuster was compliant.

The exam was rescheduled to a later date by which it was hoped the virus problem would be resolved. If not, the above process could be repeated, i.e., postponed again. 

There has been considerable discussion of the use of telemedicine but no overall agreement to date on how it would be fair to all parties. In the meantime, it appears as though we'll need to rely on good faith negotiations. That task is likely to be as challenging as the coronavirus already is. We should try anyway. 

Dr. Robert Weinmann writes the Politics of Healthcare blog, from which this entry was taken with permission.