Physicians who accept injured workers as patients know that adverse utilization review (UR) decisions can devastate well-planned diagnostic and therapeutic programs. Some major facilities won't tolerate this risk and refuse to accept injured workers.
Dr. Robert Weinmann
Utilization review is required in workers' comp. It works like this: Doctor A interviews and examines Injured Worker B, and decides that certain diagnostic tests and treatment are indicated.
But in workers' comp and in other insurance venues, that decision gets forwarded to a doctor who does not interview or examine the patient. What he does do is review the medical record and decide about authorization for the recommended diagnostic test and/or treatment. Absent this authorization, the treatment program is stopped dead in its tracks.
Under California law, doctors who do utilization review need to be licensed physicians. However, the law does not say that they must be licensed in California. This oversight has led to a situation where doctors who are not licensed in California reject treatment plans.
The rejections may be appealed but in the vast majority of cases they are upheld. It would be simple enough to correct this oversight by amending the law so that UR has to be done by California-licensed physicians.
California-licensed physicians are subject to discipline by the state Medical Board, which has, as a matter of fact, recommended that all physicians doing UR on California cases be licensed by the state board and be subject to discipline by the state board.
By contrast, non-California licensed physicians are not subject to this state's Medical Board. They are also not subject to discipline by their own state boards, since California cases are out of their jurisdiction. This situation has led to countless appeals, delayed care, further injury to untreated injured workers and an exodus of doctors from industrial medicine.
Now comes Senate Bill 1303, introduced by Dr. Richard Pan, to make sure that forensic autopsies are conducted by licensed physicians instead of by non-medically trained persons who've been designated or elected as coroners. However, as the bill is currently written, the requirement is for this job to be done by a "medical examiner ... a licensed physician and surgeon duly qualified as a specialist in pathology."
No mention is made of licensure in California. At least, not yet.
In order to avoid travesties akin to what has been happening with UR for the last several years, my recommendation is that medical examiners shall meet the qualifications as already stated in SB 1303, and to these requirements, be added mandatory licensure in California with the same oversight by the Medical Board as is provided for physicians licensed in California. No residence requirement is sought, only medical licensure in California.
Otherwise, in highly disputed forensic cases such as we've described in previous editorials, the door is opened for medical examiners who are not subject to to the state Medical Board.
Dr. Robert Weinmann writes the Politics of Healthcare blog, from which this entry was taken with permission.
May 12-14, 2025
NCCI's Annual Insights Symposium (AIS) 2025 will deliver data-driven insights, providing workers c …
May 12-13, 2025
The Board of Managers is excited to announce that the CSIA 2025 Annual Meeting and Educational Con …
Jun 11-13, 2025
For two decades, CCWC has assembled the key players in the workers’ compensation arena for what is …
One Comment
Log in to post a comment
Dr Apr 5, 2018 a 11:04 am PDT
Pan and Gagliani recently amended SB 1303 so that it now requires Medical Examiners to be licensed in California. The same change is still needed for Utilization Review (UR) and Independent Medical Review (IMR) doctors. With Baker gone, this additional reform may actually stand a chance. -- Robert L. Weinmann, MD, Editor, www.politicsofhealthcare.com (The Weinmann Report)
Dr. Robert Weinmann Weinm Apr 11, 2018 a 10:04 pm PDT
This bill has now been referred to another committee, Public Safety. For the proponents, it's another chance to promote it, for the opposition, another chance to kill it. The committee chair is Senator Nancy Skinner, vice chair is Sen. Joel Anderson, other members are Senators Steven Bradford, Hannah-Beth Jackson, Holly Mitchell, Jeff Stone, and Scott Wiener. It is thought by some pundits that Stone and Anderson will be "no." The same pundits don't know about the others. Do you? -- Robert L. Weinmann, MD, San Jose.