King v CompPartners and the Duty of Care

Are utilization reviewers care providers?

That is the question argued yesterday in the King v CompPartners case before the California Supreme Court.

The case appears straightforward; the plaintiff was prescribed Kolonopin, which was denied after going through the UR and IMR process. When he stopped taking the drug, he suffered several grand mal seizures which led to additional injury. The plaintiffs are arguing the UR physician who wrote the final denial should have authorized or otherwise recommended a gradual withdrawal, as seizures are not uncommon when patients suddenly stop taking Klonopin (Mr King had been taking it for two years).  In the view of the plaintiffs, failing to do that amounted to medical malpractice .

The central legal issue in this case is the exclusive remedy nature of workers’ comp, with the defendant arguing that he cannot be charged with malpractice as the UR determination and related processes took place within the workers’ comp system. While that’s the central issue, it’s not my focus.

Rather, I’m interested in the “duty of care” issue. I’ll leave the exclusive remedy issue to the lawyers; the health of the patient – and who is responsible for that – is what’s important to me.

There’s some pertinent case law in California that speaks to the “duty of care”, a phrase that infers the physician doing the review  is responsible  – to some degree – for the medical treatment and results thereof associated with his/her UR determination. In fact, the first court ruling verified that the UR physician owed the patient a duty of care.

The question seems to be, how broad and deep was the duty owed the patient?

The case went to appeal, and the court asserted that the UR physician did have a duty of care. From my reading, it based that assertion on the court’s view that a UR physician is implicitly acting as a medical provider.

However – and this is where it gets sticky – the duty of care varies depending on the patient’s specific situation.  

There’s a legal and an ethical issue here. First, that “standard” is pretty nebulous, ripe for disagreement and litigation.

Ethically it’s more clear. The UR entity should always consider the implications of its decision, the potential negative health consequences, as well as the narrower workers’ comp medical considerations of relatedness, appropriateness, and causation.

Because at the end of the day, it’s about doing the right thing for the patient.

Here’s where the reality that is California’s work comp screws things up; payers often base their decisions on which UR vendor to use largely on price.  UR is seen as a commodity, a necessary evil, especially in California where medical management costs account for way too much of the claims dollar.

Payers are looking to get the cheapest UR they can, while some providers and their legal/lobbying supporters scream about high administrative expenses, inferring those dollars should be spent on patients.

What does this mean for you?

What patients need is careful, thorough UR by physicians with the time and training to foresee and speak to potential consequences of their determinations. And that costs money.

Both payers and their adversaries would be well served to acknowledge that fact.

 

 

Article source:Managed Care Matters

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s