California has a workers' compensation system in which payers can't lose.
In practice, there are no penalties for refusing to pay a legitimate bill; no consequences for ignoring clear treatment authorization. If a payer forces a doctor to spend time appealing bogus payment denials, in the worst-case scenario, they only pay exactly what they always owed.
This is how the system works under the California Division of Workers’ Compensation (CA DWC).
Recently, Third Party Administrator Gallagher Bassett demonstrated how payers benefit from this rigged payment system. In January, a provider submitted an electronic bill (e-bill) to the Third-Party Administrator (TPA) for treating an Evolution Hospitality, LLC employee. Gallagher Bassett denied payment.
According to its Explanation of Review (EOR), Gallagher Bassett denied payment for lack of authorization:
There’s just one problem with this denial reasoning: Gallagher Bassett undeniably authorized the treatment. The provider submitted proof of that authorization, issued by Gallagher Bassett itself, along with the bill.
Unfortunately, in California’s lopsided billing and payment environment, the facts do not matter.
When providers send e-bills using daisyBill, those e-bills include attached documentation that cannot be separated from the bill or “lost” along the way. In this case, the provider’s e-bill included:
The Gallagher Bassett authorization the provider sent with the e-bill clearly shows the treatment in question is "Peer Approved."
(The document's blurriness represents another gift to payers from the CA DWC, which refuses to require standardized formats for Utilization Review decisions; but that's a rant for another day.)
None of this stopped Gallagher Bassett from claiming that the authorization never existed and sending an EOR (shown below) denying payment for the authorized services.
Arguably, CA DWC regulations and selective enforcement make this kind of payer behavior inevitable. Here’s why:
If Gallagher Bassett denies payment:
The CA DWC does not enforce any consequences (such as penalty and interest payments or refunding the IBR filing fee) on Gallagher Bassett for failing to pay providers correctly. So, why bother?
Worse, the CA DWC may consider this dispute “ineligible” for IBR. Authorization is considered a “threshold” issue regarding whether or not the payer must pay a bill. Since IBR only resolves disputes over the amount of payment owed, claiming lack of authorization (however farcically) can disqualify an IBR request.
The CA DWC has the authority and the legal mandate to deter payers from this kind of behavior. Instead, it watches from the sidelines while payers make treating injured workers financially irrational for doctors.
As a result, fewer providers are willing to take on workers' comp patients, ultimately delaying treatment and worsening health outcomes. Employers and their injured workers are paying the price (literally) for a system that arguably incentivizes payers to commit abuses.
Evolution Hospitality's employees deserve better than a TPA that treats payment obligations as optional. California's employers and injured workers deserve better than a regulator that refuses to regulate.
Sadly, this is the system California built. Until something changes, payers like Gallagher Bassett will keep doing exactly what the system rewards them for doing: whatever they want.
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.
This routinely happens at our pain management practice, even for patients for which one is Primary Treating Physician. It has been occurring for over 3 years. Good job calling it out
I have had the exact same experience, since Anthem Blue Cross PPO has taken over the bills! I submit for 2nd Bill Review and denied again! I had mentioned something to Ken about it and I have collected some EOR's if you would like to review as well.