Post by Logan on Apr 17, 2016 19:57:08 GMT -6
House bill would establish a more efficient system for resolving workers' compensation disputes
I was dismayed to read the oped by Samuel Pond ("Here's why a workers' comp 'reform' bill is just an attack on workers' rights," March 30 PennLive) that mischaracterizes House Bill 1800 as an "attack on workers' rights." On the contrary, as a regular participant in the workers' compensation system, I see the bill as a belated correction to an area that is filled with uncertainty for injured workers, providers, and payers.
When an employee is injured on the job, the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act provides for coverage of "reasonable and necessary" medical treatment. Employers and their insurers pay for most treatment without complication. However, when there are disputes, too often the vague statutory language creates protracted litigation and inconsistent outcomes.
House Bill 1800 would establish a more efficient system for resolving disputes by ensuring decisions are based on nationally-recognized, evidence-based guidelines. Most states utilize this approach, and the experience has generally been that it provides a more streamlined and predictable system for approving treatment, with benefits to the patient and provider as well as to the employer. These guidelines do not eliminate flexibility. When treatment falls outside the scope of evidence-based medicine, guidelines lay out how a provider can demonstrate why a particular course of treatment is reasonable and necessary in a particular case.
Most importantly, use of guidelines has been shown to improve an injured worker's return to health, as confirmed by a recent study conducted with the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. House Bill 1800 is supported by other healthcare providers, including the Pennsylvania Occupational and Environmental Medical Society, and ought to be supported by all stakeholders.
www.pennlive.com/opinion/2016/04/workers_compensation_act.html
I was dismayed to read the oped by Samuel Pond ("Here's why a workers' comp 'reform' bill is just an attack on workers' rights," March 30 PennLive) that mischaracterizes House Bill 1800 as an "attack on workers' rights." On the contrary, as a regular participant in the workers' compensation system, I see the bill as a belated correction to an area that is filled with uncertainty for injured workers, providers, and payers.
When an employee is injured on the job, the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act provides for coverage of "reasonable and necessary" medical treatment. Employers and their insurers pay for most treatment without complication. However, when there are disputes, too often the vague statutory language creates protracted litigation and inconsistent outcomes.
House Bill 1800 would establish a more efficient system for resolving disputes by ensuring decisions are based on nationally-recognized, evidence-based guidelines. Most states utilize this approach, and the experience has generally been that it provides a more streamlined and predictable system for approving treatment, with benefits to the patient and provider as well as to the employer. These guidelines do not eliminate flexibility. When treatment falls outside the scope of evidence-based medicine, guidelines lay out how a provider can demonstrate why a particular course of treatment is reasonable and necessary in a particular case.
Most importantly, use of guidelines has been shown to improve an injured worker's return to health, as confirmed by a recent study conducted with the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. House Bill 1800 is supported by other healthcare providers, including the Pennsylvania Occupational and Environmental Medical Society, and ought to be supported by all stakeholders.
www.pennlive.com/opinion/2016/04/workers_compensation_act.html