QME Reps Say DWC Ignored Agreements Between Payers, Providers for Med-Legal Fee Schedule

By Mark Powell
State: California
Topic: Top
- Popular with: Legal
- 0 shares

The president of the California Society of Industrial Medicine and Surgery and dozens of qualified m…

Purchase this story for only $7.99!

Add to Cart

For access to all our articles, check out our subscription options.

3 Comments

Close Do not post libelous remarks. You are solely responsible for the postings you input. By posting here you agree to hold harmless and indemnify WorkCompCentral for any damages and actions your post may cause.

Dr Jul 6, 2020 a 1:07 pm PDT

Mark Powell's resume is on target -- undersigned feels that the tortured contract vehicles such as ML 206 re "remedial" reports and paper size disputes show that DWC negotiating was not in good faith or got altered by higher authority after the formal negotiating was concluded. These aspects are discussed in The Weinmann Report (www.politicsofhealthcare.com), July 1 and 3, also submitted to work comp central as "industry insight."

-- Robert L. Weinmann, MD, QME, Editor
-- CSIMS member since 1990
-- Formerly, president, Union of American Physicians and Dentists, UAPD, L 206, AFL-CIO
-- Chair, Cmte on Negotiations, CA Neurology Society

Jacob Rosenberg Jul 6, 2020 a 8:07 pm PDT

The point that illustrates the DWC bias is that every change made to the stakeholder consensus favors payers. Obviously the DWC believes its role is to protect insurance companies.
If they are allowed to continue, there will be an ongoing exodus of QMEs making it harder for injured workers to get benefits.

Ron Perelman Jul 6, 2020 a 10:07 pm PDT

The bias is obvious. The DWC needs to stay out of this until the stakeholders shake hands on a fee schedule. The the DWC should rapidly write the regs. It is that simple. They are a governmental organization. The fee schedule is between the parties that do the work and those who pay for it. The DWC should not care if the parties agree. It is that simple.