Purchase this story for only $7.99!
Add to CartFor access to all our articles, check out our subscription options.
May 13-15, 2024
Join us May 13–15, 2024, for NCCI's Annual Insights Symposium (AIS) 2024, the industry’s premier e …
Jul 29 – Aug 2, 2024
SAVE THE DATE! 76th Annual SAWCA Convention July 29 – August 2, 2024 Hotel Effie Sandestin 1 Grand …
Aug 14-17, 2024
California Society of Industrial Medicine and Surgery (CSIMS) is combining its two conferences, PI …
3 Comments
Log in to post a comment
Dr Jul 6, 2020 a 8:07 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 7, 2020 a 3:07 am 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 7, 2020 a 5:07 am 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.