Texas was one of the first to introduce an Independent Medical Review process to its system, an idea that was borrowed by California. Texas' IMR system differs from California's in significant respects such as appealability and the number of IMR vendors, so they aren't really comparable. And even though there is an appeal process, a Texas IMR is, from my understanding, very rarely appealed because the system is stable and Texas practitioners have learned that challenging IMR is essentially fruitless.
Though there may be other states with similar programs, another thing that Texas does that other states might look at is auditing of peer review medical reporting. These peer reviews are admissible in workers' compensation hearings.
According to the audit proposal:
"A peer reviewer is a health care provider who performs an administrative review at the insurance carrier’s request without a physical examination of the injured employee. The peer reviewer must not have any known conflicts of interest with the injured employee or the health care provider who has proposed or rendered any health care being reviewed."
They are used for extent-of-injury and medical-necessity disputes and are to ensure that the medical evidence meets standards, and/or to provide a level of independence and credibility to the evidence presented in a case.
The division audits these medical-necessity dispute peer reviews, and is now proposing to audit extent-of-injury reviews.
The audits are "plan-based"; they're governed by the division’s Medical Quality Review Annual Audit Plan. That includes among its review categories, “insurance carriers/peer review doctors – potentially includes the quality of peer review reports and the appropriateness of actions taken based on peer review reports.”
Peer-review reports are performed by doctors selected by the division. Only peer review reports that are entered into a hearings proceeding are subject to an audit.
The plan-based audit draft for peer reviews lists four purposes:
Peer-review requirements are governed by Rule 180.28 in Title 28, part 2, subchapter B of the Texas Administrative Code, which were adopted as part of Texas' big reform nearly 10 years ago, HB 7.
The division, in its proposed Peer Review Plan-Based Audit rules, would resolve any conflicts between the Medical Quality Review Process and the plan-based audit in favor of the audit; i.e. the audit would trump the MQRP.
I find that provision odd - how can a physician in a peer review process rely on the MQRP then? - particularly since Division Medical Advisor David Davis said in a memo to system participants that the plan-based audit “sets the scope, methodology, selection criteria and program area responsibilities as laid out in the Medical Quality Review Process.”
But these new rules are open for discussion and are still pending final edit. System participants have until 5 p.m. (CST) on Nov. 4 to submit suggestions for the Plan-Based Audit to OMA@tdi.texas.gov.
The division audits these medical-necessity dispute peer reviews, and is now proposing to audit extent-of-injury reviews.
The audits are "plan-based"; they're governed by the division’s Medical Quality Review Annual Audit Plan. That includes among its review categories, “insurance carriers/peer review doctors – potentially includes the quality of peer review reports and the appropriateness of actions taken based on peer review reports.”
Peer-review reports are performed by doctors selected by the division. Only peer review reports that are entered into a hearings proceeding are subject to an audit.
The plan-based audit draft for peer reviews lists four purposes:
- Promoting the delivery of quality health care in a cost-effective manner.
- Ensure that peer reviewers adhere to requirements when issuing peer review reports for extent-of-injury and/or medical-necessity issues.
- Ensure peer reviewers review and maintain records when performing peer review.
- Ensure that peer reviewers hold the appropriate credentials when performing a review.
Peer-review requirements are governed by Rule 180.28 in Title 28, part 2, subchapter B of the Texas Administrative Code, which were adopted as part of Texas' big reform nearly 10 years ago, HB 7.
The division, in its proposed Peer Review Plan-Based Audit rules, would resolve any conflicts between the Medical Quality Review Process and the plan-based audit in favor of the audit; i.e. the audit would trump the MQRP.
I find that provision odd - how can a physician in a peer review process rely on the MQRP then? - particularly since Division Medical Advisor David Davis said in a memo to system participants that the plan-based audit “sets the scope, methodology, selection criteria and program area responsibilities as laid out in the Medical Quality Review Process.”
But these new rules are open for discussion and are still pending final edit. System participants have until 5 p.m. (CST) on Nov. 4 to submit suggestions for the Plan-Based Audit to OMA@tdi.texas.gov.
No comments:
Post a Comment