There’s 10 docs in LA who account for 1 of every 8 IMR requests in California’s work comp system.
That’s about 3 for every working day for each physician. That’s a shipload of IMR respects.
According to research just released by CWCI, 88.5% of their requests to overturn a UR decision are rejected.
One wonders if they find something new to appeal each and every time, for surely they must know that if drug A has been rejected 10 times out of 10 – or 20 out of 20, or, well, you get my drift – it probably makes no sense to ask for it again.
Unless, you’re just trying to flood the IMR system, choke it with requests so it can’t function, and pick out one or two screw-ups to hold up as evidence that the entire system is broken. Conveniently ignoring that the flood of unnecessary requests may have played a big role in screwing up that system.
Then you complain that decisions are delayed and late and not fulfilled, conveniently ignoring that most of those delays are due to a failure on your part to send in the right documents.
But let’s set aside these disagreements and focus on what’s really happening here.
We all know that many treatments hurt patients; unneeded surgery, too many MRIs, the wrong drugs or overuse of opioids do much harm. That’s been so well documented you don’t need me to provide citations.
Yet a handful of docs persist in demanding they be allowed to do this to their patients – to overprescribe opioids, to over-radiate, to cut and sew.
Drugs account for almost half of all IMR requests – the vast majority of the denied drug requests are for opioids, a drug class long known to be dangerous, subject to abuse, and rarely appropriate except for short term treatment of trauma or post-surgical pain.
Let’s have a conversation about the human cost of this unnecessary and dangerous treatment. We’ve heard a lot about the harm caused by payers and processes that fail patients – some of it has been accurate and some wildly distorted (the denial of spinal fusion, for one)
What does this mean for you?
For those who tout themselves as claimant advocates, are you ready to talk about over-treatment and the damage it causes and what you will do to protect your clients?
If not, why not?