ILNews

Refiguring workers' comp in Indiana

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

Most stakeholders agree Indiana needs to provide better benefits to workers injured on the job. But a bill that would do just that also would reduce and cap the amount hospitals receive to treat people covered by workers’ compensation insurance.

Hospitals say they’re being squeezed, but insurance and industry officials say a proposal to pay health care facilities 125 percent above Medicare reimbursement rates on workers’ comp claims is more than generous and years overdue.

comp“There’s still going to be a lot of heavy lifting in the Senate on that issue,” said Rep. Matt Lehman, R-Berne, whose House Bill 1320 passed the House after its hospital reimbursement provision was increased in committee. As introduced, the bill would have paid hospitals 75 percent more than Medicare pays.

“The initial discussion during the summer study committee was, should we be using some sort of commercial rate, or do we use a Medicare-plus system,” said Lehman, a partner in his hometown firm of Bixler Insurance Inc., and chairman of the House Insurance Committee.

More than two-thirds of states have adopted a workers’ compensation hospital reimbursement schedule based on Medicare rates, plus a defined percentage. In Indiana, hospitals currently bill workers’ compensation their chargemaster rates – the amount paid by uninsured people and not subject to disclosure – unless the employer or insurer is large enough to negotiate rates independently.

“When it comes to reimbursement, our hands are tied,” Lehman said. “We don’t have any cost containment built into our system.”

Indiana Worker’s Compensation Board Chairman Linda Hamilton said it’s up to the Legislature to decide an appropriate level of hospital reimbursement, but it’s clear a cap is needed. She has been pushing for caps for about seven years as the costs of reimbursement steadily climbed.

“When you compare Indiana to others states, the cost of providing medical care to injured workers is very high,” she said. “We’re one of the top four or five states in the nation for that.”

Ed Roberts, a lobbyist and vice president of the Indiana Manufacturers Association, said industry has sought for decades to rein in workers’ comp care costs. He said previously about a third of a workers’ compensation premium paid for health care costs. Now, that figure is more than 80 percent. That leaves very little to provide direct benefits to workers.

“They are preposterous to say the least,” Roberts said of hospitals’ workers’ comp reimbursement rates. He acknowledged HB 1320 would cut reimbursement hospitals receive under workers’ comp, but said the proposed level of pay “is so high as to make it unworkable.

“It’s several times more than what is appropriate or fair,” Roberts said. Hospitals use workers’ comp reimbursement, he explained, to shift costs and cover unpaid care.

Employers walk a fine line, he said. They want to ensure

workers receive the best care possible and that hospitals are paid adequately for their service so they don’t opt out of providing workers’ comp service. “That doesn’t require us to provide (hospitals) leather couches, parking garages, marble lobbies and original paintings on the walls,” he added.

But Tim Kennedy, a partner at Hall Render Killian Heath & Lyman P.C., said critics aren’t in a position to determine the level of reimbursement hospitals need to treat those covered by workers’ compensation policies. Kennedy represents about 130 member health care facilities as a lobbyist for the Indiana Hospital Association.

“We think the public policy of Indiana should be that hospitals be reimbursed under workers’ compensation at the rates paid in the commercial market,” Kennedy said. “Hospitals should not reap a windfall on workers’ compensation reimbursement; they also should not have to take a loss.”

Kennedy said a working group of hospitals that provide a large volume of workers’ compensation service concluded that the level of 125 percent above the Medicare rate the House passed “is not sufficient to get hospitals to commercial rates.

“We have some figures in mind, but we’re going to be working with the Senate on what that might be,” he said, declining to divulge a figure.

Marty Wood, president of the Insurance Institute of Indiana, said studies have shown that efficiently managed hospitals can break even or run with a slight profit on Medicare reimbursements. The institute supported HB 1320 as it was introduced with reimbursement at 75 percent above Medicare rates, but he said paying hospitals 125 percent over Medicare would make Indiana an outlier among states that have adopted such models.

Other states typically assure hospitals reimbursement at a rate of 35 to 75 percent above Medicare, Wood said. Among neighboring states, only Illinois reimburses at a rate higher than proposed in HB 1320. Other next-door states provide far less – 34 percent to 44 percent above Medicare.

Wood said the question for lawmakers is how much statutory profit they decide to write into the law for hospitals taking workers’ comp insurance.

“There is no middle ground,” he said. “Either the hospitals are going to lose, or the payor side is going to lose, and we both have known that all along. For years, we’ve been trying to come up with a solution that would be a middle ground.”

The legislation also would establish a $2 fee on every workers’ compensation insurance policy to help pay the board’s costs in administering disputes over health provider reimbursement.

Meanwhile, workers’ nonmedical benefits would receive a boost for the first time in several years if HB 1320 becomes law.

The maximum benefit capped at $325,000 in 2009 would increase $15,000 annually beginning in 2014, maxing out at $400,000 in 2018.

Likewise, the proposal includes an escalator for the average weekly wage used to determine nonmedical temporary total or partial disability, as well as total permanent disability.

Since 2009, the average weekly wage basis was $975. HB 1320 proposes to raise that by $45 annually beginning in 2014 until the average weekly wage rises to $1,200 in 2018.

Lehman said the study committee determined that caps on hospitals should be accompanied by increases in the amount of nonmedical benefits injured workers were entitled to under formulas the state uses to compensate workers’ comp payments.

“I think it was the right time” to raise workers’ benefits, Lehman said. “We were in the 40s (of the 50 states) when it came to reimbursement levels.

“This brings it up to where we’re in the middle of the pack, so to speak,” he said.•

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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT