When a claims administrator incorrectly reimburses a California workers’ comp provider, the mandated process for the provider to dispute the error (or purposeful theft) is costly, onerous and extraordinarily unjust. Instead of offering providers a way to pursue correct reimbursement, this shameful appeals process often functions as a profit center for payers.
The Division of Workers' Compensation (DWC) devised and implemented payment appeal regulations that require providers to expend tremendous resources navigating an impossibly lopsided and rigged process. In this way, the appeals process in California actually encourages claims administrators to increase profits by improperly adjusting provider’s bills.
Below, we outline the many excessive regulatory hurdles forced upon providers demanding proper reimbursement, and show exactly how the California appeals system enriches claims administrators that deny providers correct payment for treating injured workers.
Since California passed Senate Bill 863 in 2012, providers must adhere to a strict and burdensome appeals process that seems designed to fatigue providers out of pursuing correct reimbursement.
The process for disputing an erroneous payment for treating an injured worker is as follows:
Question: Why would a claims administrator ever properly reimburse a provider’s initial bill, since the regulations allows them to keep the purloined revenue unless a provider submits a Second Review appeal? This regulation encourages improper reimbursements, because the claims administrator’s profits increase if the provider fails to timely dispute the incorrect reimbursement.
Question: Why would a claims administrator ever pay a provider’s appeal since the regulations allows them to keep the purloined revenue unless the provider pays $180 to file for IBR? This regulation encourages improper reimbursements, because the claims administrator’s profits increase if the provider fails to timely escalate the appeal to IBR.
Requesting IBR is excruciatingly burdensome, to say the least. Failure to follow any of the onerous IBR steps listed below to dispute erroneous reimbursements means the claims administrator keeps the provider’s reimbursement.
Even if the provider prevails at IBR, the claims administrator will ignore California law and refuse to reimburse the provider the $180 IBR filing fee (we have lots of examples).
For providers, the administrative costs of pursuing IBR (plus the $180 filing fee imposed by the DWC) often far exceeds any additional payment the provider stands to gain by ‘winning’ the IBR — and claims administrators know it.
Question: Why would any doctor agree to treat California injured workers?
Answer: Most refuse.
If the provider makes a single misstep in the above process, California law allows the claims administrator to keep the reimbursement due to the provider for treating the injured worker.
Rather than penalizing the claims administrator for failing to adhere to workers’ comp laws, regulations and rules, California law places the burden entirely on the provider, and defaults to the claims administrator’s advantage. The result: these regulations encourage claims administrators to improperly underpay or deny bills and appeals with near impunity to line their pockets with increased profits.
Many providers conclude that workers’ comp requires such large administrative and financial waste, simply to receive correct payment, that treating injured workers isn’t sustainable.
Who can blame them?
DaisyBill provides content as an insightful service to its readers and clients. It does not offer legal advice and cannot guarantee the accuracy or suitability of its content for a particular purpose.