ILNews

DTCI: Synopsis of House Enrolled Act 1320

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

 

noltemeyer-aubrey-dtci By Aubrey K. Noltemeyer
bushemi-amanda-dtci By Amanda E. Bushemi

On May 11, 2013, Indiana Gov. Michael Pence signed into law House Enrolled Act 1320, a bill authored by Rep. Matt Lehman, R-Berne, and co-authored by Rep. Ed Soliday, R-Valparaiso. The workers’ compensation reform legislation, effective July 1, 2013, not only increases benefit amounts to injured workers, but also, most notably, imposes a fee schedule for the reimbursement of medical service facilities based upon Medicare’s reimbursement rates. The significant changes to the Indiana Worker’s Compensation Act are discussed below, along with comparable provisions from the workers’ compensation statutes of surrounding states.

Reimbursement to medical service facility based on Medicare’s reimbursement rate

HEA 1320 enacts legislation governing payments made under the Act by an employer or an employer’s insurance carrier to a medical service facility beginning July 1, 2014. Under the Act, medical service facility is defined as only the following: (1) a hospital (as defined in Ind. Code § 16-18-2-179); (2) a hospital-based health facility (as defined in Ind. Code § 16-18-2-180); or (3) a medical center (as defined in Ind. Code § 16-18-2-223.4). Ind. Code § 22-3-6-1(j). The new legislation imposes a fee schedule that places a cap on reimbursement at 200 percent of Medicare’s reimbursement rate for treatments or procedures by a medical service facility to a workers’ compensation claimant. Id. at § 22-3-3-5.2(b)(2); see also § 22-3-6-1(k)(2)(B) (defining pecuniary liability). Such fee schedule is applicable unless the amount of reimbursement is otherwise negotiated between the medical service facility and any of the following: (1) the employer; (2) the employer’s insurance carrier; (3) a billing review service on behalf of the employer or the employer’s insurance carrier; or (4) a direct provider network that has contracted with the employer or the employer’s insurance carrier. Id. at § 22-3-3-5.2(b)(1); see also § 22-3-6-1(k)(2)(A) (defining pecuniary liability).

Even after this new reimbursement rate takes effect July 1, 2014, medical service providers, such as physicians, will continue to be reimbursed pursuant to the 80th percentile reimbursement rate that is already established by the Act. Based on the law, medical service provider is now defined as “a person or entity that provides services or products to an employee under IC 22-3-2 through IC 22-3-6.” Id. at § 22-3-6-1(i). The relevant portion of the Act reads:

This subdivision applies before July 1, 2014, to all medical service providers, and after June 30, 2014, to a medical service provider that is not a medical service facility. Payment of the charges in a defined community, equal to or less than the charges made by medical service providers at the eightieth percentile in the same community for like services or products.

Id. at § 22-3-3-5.2(a)(3); see also § 22-3-6-1(k)(1) (defining pecuniary liability).

The following is a brief analysis of the reimbursement rates implemented by surrounding states to compare with Indiana’s new legislation:

Kentucky

Kentucky’s fee schedule is longstanding and consists of two separate fee schedules: one for hospitals and one for physicians. While many states base fee schedules on Medicare or Medicaid’s rate and apply a flat rate, the applicable hospital fee schedule in Kentucky varies by the location of the facility. See 803 Ky. Admin. Regs. 25:091 (2013). The applicable percentage, unique to that facility’s physical address, is applied to the hospital’s bill to determine the maximum reimbursement for the treatment of an injured worker. Id. On the other hand, reimbursement to physicians in Kentucky does not vary by the health care provider’s location. Rather, a standard rate is applied to the particular procedure, resulting in the maximum fee allowed for the service. See id. at 25:089. It should be noted that Kentucky prohibits balance billing, and thus physicians and hospitals are prohibited from attempting to collect reimbursement in excess of that provided under the fee schedule. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 342.035(2) (2013).

Illinois

Illinois’ basic fee schedule provides for payment of a percentage of the 80th percentile cost of any given procedure, treatment or service. 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. 305/8.2(a) (2011). “The maximum allowable payment shall be 90 percent of the 80th percentile of charges and fees as determined by the Commission utilizing information provided by the employers’ and insurers’ national databases” for compensable treatment rendered on or after Feb. 1, 2006. Id. For treatment rendered on or after Sept. 1, 2011, the maximum allowable payment is 70 percent of the fee schedule amount. Id. at 305/8.2(a-2). The fee schedules make cost modifications based upon geographic location, similar to Kentucky. See id. at 305/8.2(a-1)(a). Nonhospital fee schedule amounts are grouped into four regions by county, and hospital fee schedule amounts are grouped into 14 county-specific regions. Id. If the treatment is extraordinary, it can be reviewed to determine whether an additional adjustment to the maximum reimbursement is necessary. Id. at 305/8.2(c).

Michigan

In general, Michigan’s reimbursement rate to a health facility or health care provider is the lesser of either: (1) the maximum fee by a health facility or health care provider established in the localized fee schedule; or (2) the customary charge that the attending health facility or health care provider typically charges for such treatment. Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 418.315(2) (2013); see also Mich. Admin. Code R. 418.10101(1)(b), (k) (2013). Similar to the fee schedule for physicians in Kentucky, the maximum allowable payment is derived from use of a relative value unit and a conversion factor. See Mich. Admin. Code R.418.101002a(1). Michigan uses the Medicare Resource-Based Relative Value Scale to determine the relative value unit, which takes into account the resources used to provide each service as well as the geographic location, thus enabling Michigan prices to be more accurately reflected. Id. at R. 418.10106(3). As in Indiana, there are instances when Michigan’s fee schedule is deemed inapplicable, including when a carrier and provider have a contractual agreement providing for alternative reimbursement below that which the fee schedule would provide. Id. at R. 418.10101(4).

Wisconsin

In Wisconsin, the reimbursement standard for fees charged to an employer or its insurer by health service providers is not based upon an established fee schedule but rather is based upon “reasonableness” in relation to comparable services. See Wis. Stat. Ann. § 102.42 (2013).

Disputes as to the reasonableness of a fee charged by a health service provider for medical services provided to an injured employee who claims benefits under Wisconsin’s Worker’s Compensation Act are resolved by the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development. Id. at § 102.16(1m)(a), (2)(a); see also id. at § 102.18(bg)(1). When the reasonableness of reimbursement is disputed, the employer or its insurer must provide the Department of Workforce Development with information about fees charged by other health service providers for comparable services, obtained from a database certified by the department. Id. at § 102.16(2)(c). The standard used by the department in its reasonableness determination is the following: “a disputed fee is reasonable … if that fee is at or below the mean fee for the health service procedure for which the disputed fee was charged, plus 1.2 standard deviations from that mean, as shown by data from a database that is certified by the department.” Id. at § 102.16(2)(d). Thus, anything below the mean fee plus 1.2 standard deviations is deemed reasonable unless the health service provider proves, as in Illinois, that a higher fee is justified because the relevant treatment was unusually difficult or complicated. Id.

Reimbursement for implant furnished to employee

Leaving our neighbors aside, the following is an expansion on the additional implications of HEA 1320, which deals also with pecuniary liability for medical implants furnished to injured workers. The Act now places a cap on the price of implants using the actual cost to the medical service provider. Payment to a medical service provider for an implant furnished to an injured employee under the Act may not exceed the invoice amount paid by the medical service provider plus 25 percent. Ind. Code § 22-3-3-5.2(c).

Reimbursement for repackaged prescription drug furnished to employee

In response to the rapidly increasing costs of physician-dispensed prescription drugs for injured workers, HEA 1320 also provides new regulations regarding the reimbursement amounts for repackaged prescription drugs. The new law states that whenever a prescription covered under the Act is filled using a repackaged (as defined in Ind. Code § 25-26-14-9.3) legend drug (as defined in Ind. Code § 25-26-14-7), the maximum reimbursement amount for the repackaged legend drug is computed using the average wholesale price set by the original manufacturer. Ind. Code § 22-3-3-4.5(c). Thus, such drugs cannot be sold for a price higher than the average wholesale price established by the original manufacturer. It should be noted that this is not applicable to a retail or mail order pharmacy. Id. The additions to the Act also provide that if the National Drug Code for a legend drug cannot be determined from the medical service provider’s statement or billing, then the maximum reimbursement amount for the repackaged legend drug is the lowest cost generic for that legend drug. Id. at § 22-3-3-4.5(d).

Increased benefit amounts for injured workers

The enactment of HEA 1320 also increases the benefit amounts for injured workers covered under the Act with regard to dollars per degree for permanent partial impairment and the maximum amount of nonmedical compensation. In addition, the maximum and minimum average weekly wages are increased.

First, the amended legislation includes graduated percentage increases to the compensation schedule for impairment benefits over a three-year period, beginning July 1, 2014. The dollars per degree will increase as follows:

For injuries on and after July 1, 2014, and before July 1, 2015:

1-10 degrees of PPI: $1,517 per degree

11-35 degrees of PPI: $1,717 per degree

36-50 degrees of PPI: $2,862 per degree

51+ degrees of PPI: $3,687 per degree

For injuries on and after July 1, 2015, and before July 1, 2016:

1-10 degrees of PPI: $1,633 per degree

11-35 degrees of PPI: $1,835 per degree

36-50 degrees of PPI: $3,024 per degree

51+ degrees of PPI: $3,873 per degree

For injuries on and after July 1, 2016:

1-10 degrees of PPI: $1,750 per degree

11-35 degrees of PPI: $1,952 per degree

36-50 degrees of PPI: $3,186 per degree

51+ degrees of PPI: $4,060 per degree

Ind. Code § 22-3-3-10(j)(13)-(15).

In addition, the maximum amount of nonmedical compensation, including temporary and permanent disability and impairment benefits, paid to injured workers will increase beginning July 1, 2014. For injuries occurring on and after July 1, 2014, and before July 1, 2015, the maximum amount of compensation, exclusive of medical benefits, may not exceed $347,000. Id. at § 22-3-3-22(t)(11). For injuries on and after July 1, 2015, and before July 1, 2016, the maximum amount of nonmedical benefits paid under the Act is $368,000. Id. at § 22-3-3-22(t)(12). For injuries that occur on and after July 1, 2016, the maximum amount of nonmedical compensation that can be paid to an injured worker is $390,000. Id. at § 22-3-3-22(t)(13).

Finally, the amended legislation increases the average weekly wages used in computing compensation for temporary total or temporary partial disability as well as total permanent disability. The maximum and minimum average weekly wages for injured workers are amended as follows:

For injuries on and after July 1, 2009, and before July 1, 2014: maximum, $975; minimum, $75

For injuries on and after July 1, 2014, and before July 1, 2015: maximum, $1,040; minimum, $75

For injuries on and after July 1, 2015, and before July 1, 2016: maximum, $1,105; minimum, $75

For injuries on and after July 1, 2016: maximum, $1,170; minimum: $75

Id. at § 22-3-3-22(j)(10)-(13).

Confidentiality provisions for data collected by the Worker’s Compensation Bureau

New legislation regarding the confidentiality of information filed with the Indiana Worker’s Compensation Bureau was also enacted when HEA 1320 became law. The bureau may collect data from its members, including the following: (1) claims data; (2) policy data such as policy number, policy term, and employer and employee identification information; and (3) proof of coverage data such as employer identification information, classification information, carrier information, agency identification information, premium information and payroll data. Ind. Code § 27-7-2-40. However, all data collected by the bureau are subject to this new privacy provision and are deemed confidential. Id. Such information “shall not be disclosed or disseminated to third parties” unless consented to by the bureau or specifically stated otherwise in the Act. Id.

Conclusion

Overall, HEA 1320 is an effort by our state to control and contain the ever-increasing costs of medical care for those covered under the Indiana Worker’s Compensation Act. Whereas Indiana previously ranked as one of the highest states in reimbursement rates but one of the lowest in benefits to injured workers, the new legislation makes changes that favor both ends of the spectrum. Not only is there increased transparency and cost containment with regard to reimbursement to medical service facilities, but benefits to injured workers are also increased. The portions of the legislation highlighted in this article curb problems that are still in the forefront of the workers’ compensation systems of many other states. Thus, with the enactment of HEA 1320, Indiana has provided long-awaited reform to our system that helps ensure that injured workers receive adequate health care but, at the same time, provides its medical service facilities with increased incentive to provide workers’ compensation treatment.•

Ms. Noltemeyer is a partner and Ms. Bushemi is an associate in the Indianapolis office of Kightlinger & Gray. They are both members of the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Good luck, but as I have documented in three Hail Mary's to the SCOTUS, two applications (2007 & 2013),a civil rights suit and my own kicked-to-the-curb prayer for mandamus. all supported in detailed affidavits with full legal briefing (never considered), the ISC knows that the BLE operates "above the law" (i.e. unconstitutionally) and does not give a damn. In fact, that is how it was designed to control the lawyers. IU Law Prof. Patrick Baude blew the whistle while he was Ind Bar Examiner President back in 1993, even he was shut down. It is a masonic system that blackballs those whom the elite disdain. Here is the basic thrust:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackballing When I asked why I was initially denied, the court's foremost jester wrote back that the ten examiners all voted, and I did not gain the needed votes for approval (whatever that is, probably ten) and thus I was not in .. nothing written, no explanation, just go away or appeal ... and if you appeal and disagree with their system .. proof positive you lack character and fitness. It is both arbitrary and capricious by its very design. The Hoosier legal elites are monarchical minded, and rejected me for life for ostensibly failing to sufficiently respect man's law (due to my stated regard for God's law -- which they questioned me on, after remanding me for a psych eval for holding such Higher Law beliefs) while breaking their own rules, breaking federal statutory law, and violating federal and state constitutions and ancient due process standards .. all well documented as they "processed me" over many years.... yes years ... they have few standards that they will not bulldoze to get to the end desired. And the ISC knows this, and they keep it in play. So sad, And the fed courts refuse to do anything, and so the blackballing show goes on ... it is the Indy way. My final experience here: https://www.scribd.com/document/299040062/Brown-ind-Bar-memo-Pet-cert I will open my files to anyone interested in seeing justice dawn over Indy. My cases are an open book, just ask.

  2. Looks like 2017 will be another notable year for these cases. I have a Grandson involved in a CHINS case that should never have been. He and the whole family are being held hostage by CPS and the 'current mood' of the CPS caseworker. If the parents disagree with a decision, they are penalized. I, along with other were posting on Jasper County Online News, but all were quickly warned to remove posts. I totally understand that some children need these services, but in this case, it was mistakes, covered by coorcement of father to sign papers, lies and cover-ups. The most astonishing thing was within 2 weeks of this child being placed with CPS, a private adoption agency was asking questions regarding child's family in the area. I believe a photo that was taken by CPS manager at the very onset during the CHINS co-ocerment and the intent was to make money. I have even been warned not to post or speak to anyone regarding this case. Parents have completed all requirements, met foster parents, get visitation 2 days a week, and still the next court date is all the way out till May 1, which gives them(CPS) plenty of to time make further demands (which I expect) No trust of these 'seasoned' case managers, as I have already learned too much about their dirty little tricks. If they discover that I have posted here, I expect they will not be happy and penalized parents again. Still a Hostage.

  3. They say it was a court error, however they fail to mention A.R. was on the run from the law and was hiding. Thus why she didn't receive anything from her public defender. Step mom is filing again for adoption of the two boys she has raised. A.R. is a criminal with a serious heroin addiction. She filed this appeal MORE than 30 days after the final decision was made from prison. Report all the facts not just some.

  4. Hysteria? Really Ben? Tell the young lady reported on in the link below that worrying about the sexualizing of our children is mere hysteria. Such thinking is common in the Royal Order of Jesters and other running sex vacays in Thailand or Brazil ... like Indy's Jared Fogle. Those tempted to call such concerns mere histronics need to think on this: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-12-year-old-girl-live-streamed-her-suicide-it-took-two-weeks-for-facebook-to-take-the-video-down/ar-AAlT8ka?li=AA4ZnC&ocid=spartanntp

  5. This is happening so much. Even in 2016.2017. I hope the father sue for civil rights violation. I hope he sue as more are doing and even without a lawyer as pro-se, he got a good one here. God bless him.

ADVERTISEMENT