The Workers' Compensation Daily News for Mar 01, 2015
The Bacteria Are Winning!
Fri, 27 Feb 2015 06:51:42 - Pacific Time
According to Ezekiel J. Emanuel MD, an oncologist, a vice provost at the University of Pennsylvania and Obamacare architect, the bacteria are winning. His article in the New York Times points out that every year at least two million people are infected with bacteria that can’t be wiped out with antibiotics, and as a result, 23,000 people die. Direct health care costs from these illnesses are estimated to be as high as $20 billion annually. Should a health care worker or any injured worker become infected while undergoing treatment for an industrial injury, the claim cost would exponentially increase.
Just last week, the U.C.L.A. Health System announced that nearly 180 patients may have been exposed to the CRE superbug that was linked to two deaths in one of its hospitals. Today, 30 percent of severe strep pneumonia infections are resistant to multiple drugs and 30 percent of gonorrhea infections are resistant to all antibiotics. And drug-resistant enterobacteriaceae, enterococcus, acinetobacter and a slew of other unpronounceable bacteria pose serious threats.
Dr. Emanuel says "The development of antibiotics has been glacial. We need a completely new approach."
The number of F.D.A.-approved antibiotics has decreased steadily in the past two decades. The big pharmaceutical companies have largely stopped work on these drugs. Pfizer, long the leader in developing antibiotics, closed its antibiotic research operations in 2011. Smaller biotech companies now account for 80 percent of antibiotic development. There are now about 40 new antibiotics in development. That might sound promising - but not when compared with the 771 new drugs and vaccines in clinical trials or awaiting F.D.A. review for cancer. And most of these antibiotics are unlikely to come out of the testing process as F.D.A.-approved drugs.
There are ways, apart from developing new drugs, to combat the problem of superbugs and drug resistance. One is hand-washing, especially in hospitals. Another is reversing the overprescribing of antibiotics. It’s estimated that half of all antibiotics used are unnecessary. Animal feed accounts for 80 percent of the antibiotics used in the United States and contributes to antibiotic resistance. We could also fix our antiquated system for tracking drug-resistant bacteria.
But just as important, we need to develop new treatments. Bacteria figure out a way to become resistant to every new drug. We are in an endless life-or-death struggle with bacteria.
The big problem is profitability. Unlike drugs for cholesterol or high blood pressure, or insulin for diabetes, which are taken every day for life, antibiotics tend to be given for a short time, a week or at most a few months. So profits have to be made on brief usage. Furthermore, any new antibiotics that might be developed to fight these drug-resistant bacteria are likely to be used very sparingly under highly controlled circumstances, to slow the development of resistant bacteria and extend their usefulness. This also limits the amount that can be sold.
Even though antibiotics are lifesaving, they do not command a premium price in the marketplace. As a society we seem willing to pay $100,000 or more for cancer drugs that cure no one and at best add weeks or a few months to life. We are willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars for knee surgery that, at best, improves function but is not lifesaving. So why won’t we pay $10,000 for a lifesaving antibiotic?
Congress has tried to address the problem. In 2012, it passed an act that expedited F.D.A. review and gave drug companies five more years of market exclusivity without generic competition. That has increased drug company interest in developing antibiotics, but not enough. Because it costs at least $1 billion to develop a new drug. Read More...
Global Fund Proposed for Antibiotic Development
Fri, 27 Feb 2015 06:51:35 - Pacific Time
A global fund to speed development of new antibiotics to counter the growing threat of drug-resistant superbugs is likely to need up to $2 billion, the head of a review backed by the British government said on Thursday.
The Science - Business website reports that former Goldman Sachs chief economist Jim O'Neill has urged the establishment of an innovation fund to support research, arguing that far too little is currently invested in hunting for new drugs against drug-resistant infections. "We've not yet come up with a number," O'Neill told an Economist pharmaceuticals conference when asked how big the fund would be. "My guess is probably no more than $2 billion."
O'Neill, who was asked last year by British Prime Minister David Cameron to take an economist's view of the issue, said earlier this month that philanthropists and governments should create a new fund to support drug research. In his first assessment of the threat, O'Neill estimated that so-called anti-microbial resistance (AMR) could kill an extra 10 million people a year and cost up to $100 trillion by 2050 if it was not brought under control.
The UK Review on Antimicrobial Resistance has published its second report, outlining specific steps for action to tackle the rise of drug-resistant infections worldwide. The report says that while mounting concern about the rise of antimicrobial resistance is prompting an increase in infectious disease research, a lack of funding means it is difficult to take ideas forward and companies are deterred from entering the field.
"I am calling on international funders, philanthropic or governmental, to allocate money to a fund that can support blue sky science and incubate ideas that are more mature," said Jim O’Neill, chair of the review, launching the report. Such a targeted fund would support research needed to pave the way for new drugs, for alternatives to antibiotics, and for new diagnostics to make sure the right drugs are used. It could reverse the brain drain to research areas that are currently better-paid and held in higher academic esteem, such as cancer, diabetes and dementia.
The UK government set up the review in July 2014. The first report, published in December, scoped the problem, concluding that unless action is taken to address this huge global problem, it could cost the world at least an additional 10 million lives a year by 2050, more than the number of people who currently die from cancer each year. The second report says much innovative thinking is happening in infectious disease research at the moment. But lack of funding means that while people, machines and laboratories are ready to tackle the next challenges, they are unable to do so. It also deters new entrants to the field. Without new doctors and scientists in academia, hospitals and drug companies, the ability to innovate will decrease just at the time it needs to reach its peak.
"In researching our latest report, we found no shortage of ideas and promising new technologies but progress is too slow due to lack of investment, and much of the workforce is edging towards retirement," said O’Neill. The review team is currently investigating market incentives in preparation for its next report in the Spring. Antibiotics generate low or even negative returns on investment meaning new mechanisms are needed to pull companies back into the field. Read More...
Comp Firm Alleges Opponent Hacked Computers
Thu, 26 Feb 2015 07:50:19 - Pacific Time
An report on Law360.com says that the Los Angeles law firm Reyes and Barsoum LLP launched a California state suit accusing Knox Ricksen LLP, its opposing counsel in a workers’ compensation dispute, of hacking into a computer network and illegally downloading confidential client information so it could gain an edge in the underlying case. The complaint alleges Knox Ricksen partner Eric Danowitz and associate Daniel Sharp violated California’s Computer Crime Law and business and professions code by executing a scheme in which they wrongfully obtained 2,000 case materials containing Reyes and Barsoum’s privileged documents. The attorneys allegedly gave the materials to two other Knox Ricksen attorneys, Russell Ching and Stella Mendoza, who were trying to win a discovery motion to compel deposition answers and production of documents in a workers’ compensation case pending in Marina del Rey, California.
A Workers' Compensation Judge later found the documents to be protected as privileged, noted ethical concerns and ordered the immediate return of the materials, according to allegations of the suit. "Plaintiff asked how they obtained possession of their attorney privileged documents and confidential communications. Defendants.....attempted to perpetuate and conceal a falsehood on the court," the suit alleges. "Under further questioning, for example whether someone gave them to you, the defendants said they didn’t know. Later, the defendants stated they were found on the Internet. When asked how they were found on the Internet, the defendants [sic] attorneys, Ching and Mendoza, spontaneously returned to their statement of lack of any knowledge."
In February 2013, defendants allegedly hacked into a password-protected computer network owned and operated by HQ Sign-Up Services Inc., which stored privileged and confidential documents for Reyes and Barsoum.
After a judge in the workers’ compensation case allegedly ordered the return of the documents, the defendants in the civil suite allegedly filed a petition for the judge’s removal, according to the complaint. A workers’ compensation appeals board denied the request, however, and a similar writ to the court of appeals was also dismissed.
The complaint alleges that, "on November 24, 2015," the defendants were admonished by another judge who ordered them not to use plaintiff’s intake forms, because they were privileged documents, as ruled by the judge in the workers’ compensation case. The suit further claims the defendants still haven’t turned over the materials at issue. Furthermore, they allegedly admitted to Reyes and Barsoum that they have obtained more than 30,000 attorney files, documents and property of the plaintiff and other lawyers from the HQSU website.
"Proud of the fruits of their scheme and business practices defendant, Danowitz even showed plaintiff’s [sic] a video of how easy it was to steal, hack and illegally download paintiff’s [sic] attorney privileged documents and confidential communications and property, conceding that their conduct was an intentional, unethetical [sic], unauthorized accessing, taking, use, disclosure and dissemination of plaintiff’s attorney privileged [materials]........Subsequently, the plaintiff’s [sic] have discoved [sic] that defendants have shared its files and property with other law firms."
The suit seeks unspecified damages, an order restraining defendants from accessing plaintiff’s privileged electronic communications, an order that defendants return all documents they allegedly illegally downloaded and other relief.
The case is Reyes and Barsoum LLP v. Knox Ricksen LLP et al., case number BC572975, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. The lawsuit and this report are allegations of one party in litigation and cannot be assumed to be true until proven in a court of law. Read More...
WCRI Reports on Fee Schedule Effectiveness
Thu, 26 Feb 2015 07:50:08 - Pacific Time
A new study from Mass.-based Workers Compensation Research Institute (WCRI), updates a recently published 33-state study with an extra year of data and the early impact analysis of major regulatory changes. The study, Hospital Outpatient Cost Index for Workers’ Compensation, 4th Edition, which was summarized by the Claims Journal compares hospital outpatient costs across states, identifies key cost drivers, and measures the impact of reforms.
"Rising hospital costs have been a concern and focus of recent public policy debates in many states," said Dr. Olesya Fomenko, co-author of the report and an economist at WCRI. “To assist policymakers and business decision makers in managing this growth, WCRI has created this unique study, which is updated regularly, to help them better understand hospital payments associated with outpatient surgeries." The following findings are highlighted in the study:
1) States with percent-of-charge-based fee regulations or no fee schedules had the highest payments to hospitals for outpatient surgical episodes for knee and shoulder surgeries. In particular, states with no hospital outpatient fee schedules had 60 to 141 percent higher hospital outpatient payments per episode compared with the typical state with fixed-amount fee schedules.
2) There was tremendous variation in the rates of change in hospital payments per surgical episode across states. From 2006 to 2013, South Carolina saw a reduction of 31 percent in this metric while in Alabama the average hospital payment per surgical episode grew by 81 percent. States with percent-of-charge-based fee regulations or no fee schedules had more rapid growth in hospital outpatient payments per episode than states with other regulatory approaches. In particular, most percent-of-charge-based fee regulation states that did not have updates to the reimbursable percentage of charges experienced growth in hospital payments per surgical episode that was 157–286 percent faster than the median of states with fixed-amount fee schedules
.3) States with cost-to-charge ratio fee regulations had similar levels and growth rates in hospital outpatient payments per episode to states with fixed-amount fee schedules. Hospital outpatient payments per episode in states with cost-to-charge ratio regulations grew 10–25 percent from 2006 to 2013.
The hospital outpatient cost indices compare payments per surgical episode for common outpatient surgeries under workers’ compensation from state to state for each study year and the trends within each state from 2005 to 2013. To capture only payments for services provided and billed by hospitals, the indices exclude professional services billed by nonhospital medical providers (such as physicians, physical therapists, and chiropractors) and transactions for durable medical equipment and pharmaceuticals billed by providers other than hospitals. This study also excludes payments made to ambulatory surgery centers.
The study covers 33 large states representing 86 percent of workers’ compensation benefits paid in the United States. Geographically diverse, they represent a wide range of industries and a variety of regulation choices for hospital payments under workers’ compensation. The states are Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. For additional information about this study or to purchase a copy, visit http://www.wcrinet.org/result/HCI_4_result.html. Read More...
DIR Reduces IMR/IBR Fees - Again!
Wed, 25 Feb 2015 07:00:36 - Pacific Time
The Department of Industrial Relations announced a reduction in Independent Medical Review and Independent Bill Review fees effective January 1, 2015. This is the second reduction in fees since the inception of the IMR/IBR program and will no doubt be good news to the workers' compensation community. The following are the announced fee reductions.
IMR Fees - Any IMR application submitted on or after January 1, 2015 will be subject to the following fee schedule:
Standard IMRs Involving Non-Pharmacy Claims*
Fee effective April 1, 2014: $420 per IMR
Fee effective Jan. 1, 2015: $390 per IMR
Standard IMRs Involving Pharmacy Only Claims**
Fee effective April 1, 2014: $390 per IMR
Fee effective Jan. 1, 2015: $345 per IMR
IMRs Terminated or Dismissed Not Forwarded to a Medical Professional Reviewer:
Fee effective April 1, 2014: $160 per IMR
Fee effective Jan. 1, 2015: $123 per IMR
IBR Fees - Any IBR application submitted on or after January 1, 2015 will be subject to the following fee schedule:
Completed IBR
Fee effective April 1, 2014: $250 per IBR
Fee effective Jan. 1, 2015: $195 per IBR
Ineligible IBR Not Sent to Review***
Fee effective April 1, 2014: $50 per IBR
Fee effective Jan. 1, 2015: $47.50 per IBR
* A "non-pharmacy-only" IMR is an IMR where not all treatments in dispute fall under the service category, "pharmaceuticals."
** A "pharmacy-only" IMR is an IMR where all treatments in dispute fall under the service category "pharmaceuticals."
*** Sending an IBR to review means assigning and providing the complete file to a certified coding specialist with the expertise necessary to evaluate and render decisions on all line items in dispute. Read More...
DWC Sets Public Hearing on Home Health Care Fee Schedule
Wed, 25 Feb 2015 07:00:27 - Pacific Time
The Division of Workers’ Compensation will hold a public meeting to discuss issues related to the home health services fee schedule. The meeting will take place on Tuesday, March 3, 2015 from 10:00 a.m. to Noon at the Elihu Harris State Office Building - Auditorium located at 1515 Clay Street in Oakland.
The purpose of the meeting is to hear input from the public regarding issues including assessing the need for home health services, service provider requirements, fee amounts, and billing codes. The agenda for the meeting has been posted online.
On January 27, 2014, the DWC posted the 2015 RAND study Home Health Care for California’s Injured Workers - Options for Implementing a Fee Schedule.
California Senate Bill 863 requires the Administrative Director to establish a fee schedule for home health services. Home health services range from skilled nurses and therapy services provided by home health agencies to unskilled personal care or chore services that may be provided by family members or other personal care aides. The RAND study identifies options for a single fee schedule that would cover the full range of home health services. Read More...
State Fund Declares $37 Million Dividend
Tue, 24 Feb 2015 09:03:18 - Pacific Time
The State Fund Compensation Insurance Fund’s Board of Directors has approved a $37 million dividend to qualifying policyholders for the 2014 policy year. The dividend represents approximately 2.6 percent of policyholders’ 2014 estimated annual premium.
"In addition to declaring a $37 million dividend, we strengthened our reserve position to improve State Fund’s financial strength for the long term, thanks to strong investment returns," said Vern Steiner, President and CEO.
In order to be eligible for the 2014 policy year dividend, policyholders must:
1) Have completed no less than 335 days of continuous coverage during their 2014 policy term.
2) Have not canceled during their 2014 policy term.
3) Have complied with the State Fund audit and as a result the final audit was completed within 18 months of the 2014 policy inception. No dividend shall be paid on any premium owed or paid as a result of an audit.
4) Be current on 2014 premium payments.
Payments for a dividend will be based on the inception dates of policies. This action brings total dividends declared by State Fund since 2011 to $287 million.
San Francisco-based State Fund is the largest workers’ compensation insurance carrier in the state with more than 130,000 employer policyholders. Dividends were temporarily suspended after a $92 million dollar distribution in 2001 until the approval of a $50 million dividend in 2011 followed by a $100 million dividend for the 2012 policy year and another $100 million dividend for the 2013 policy year and now a $37 million dividend for last year. Since its inception in 1914, the State Fund has paid more than $5 billion in dividends to policyholders. Read More...
Contractor Faces 34 Charges
Tue, 24 Feb 2015 09:03:12 - Pacific Time
A landscaper operating in Contra Costa County is facing 34 felony and misdemeanor charges for allegedly taking exorbitant down payments from prospective clients and never completing the work. Adan "Adam" Rivas, 34, of Concord, is alleged to have defrauded 11 families in Danville, San Ramon, Alamo, Lafayette, Orinda and Walnut Creek, prosecutors said. He has a $139,000 warrant for his arrest. For each alleged victim, Rivas faces felony charges of diverting construction funds and misdemeanor charges of entering into unlawful home improvement contracts and failing to secure worker’s compensation insurance.
In May last year, one family was so perturbed by his actions, they created the website adamrivastreescam.com in the hopes of reaching other potential victims. Commenters complained of back yards torn up and left "a huge mess," elderly neighbors who had driveways ripped up and never re-paved, and dozens of calls or text messages that went unanswered. Reviews on Yelp show a similar modus operandi. Deputy District Attorney William Murphy said the district attorney’s office believes there are additional unreported victims.
It’s a pattern that appears to repeat itself as more victims come forward, District Attorney Mark Peterson said. "These families are looking to hire someone to help them," Peterson said in a statement. "Instead, they are getting nothing but messed up yards and depleted bank accounts."
Deputy District Attorney William Murphy said the bids would often range from $8,000 to $12,000 and Rivas would ask for down payments of $3,000 to $5,000. Contractors are only legally able to take 10 percent of the estimated cost as a down payment, Murphy said. "Sometimes he would do additional negotiations for more work and take more down payment monies," Murphy said.
The website lists several aliases for the landscaping service such as "New View Tree Care," "New View Tree Service," "One Way Tree Service," "View Maintenance and Landscaping," "View Landscaping and Tree Service," and "High Tech Tree Care." Read More...
Court of Appeal Affirms Fraud Conviction
Mon, 23 Feb 2015 10:33:39 - Pacific Time
Victor Santiesteban was employed by American City Pest and Termite as a service technician until American learned he was simultaneously working for his son at another pest-control company in violation of his agreement with American. While employed by American, Santiesteban worked a night route from 4:00 p.m. to about 10:00 p.m. in a company-assigned vehicle. Santiesteban’s last day of work for American was October 26, 2009. Santiesteban filed a claim for Unemployment Insurance, which was denied on December 8, 2009. His appeal of the denial of the insurance claim was denied on or about April 7, 2010.
On January 25, 2010, Santiesteban filed a workers’ compensation claim for an injury he allegedly suffered on October 1, 2009. In the workers’ compensation claim form, Santiesteban stated he had been rear-ended while in an American truck and had suffered injuries to his "trunk." Santiesteban’s workers’ compensation claim ultimately went to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board where it was denied. Although no award was made to Santiesteban, investigation fees, copy service fees, and defense attorney fees were paid out.
Santiesteban was deposed in connection with his workers’ compensation claim. At the deposition, Santiesteban testified he had suffered injuries in an accident in October 2009 while driving his assigned American truck northbound on the 110 Freeway toward the 101 Freeway after fumigating a restaurant on Figueroa Street. Santiesteban did not remember the precise date of the accident. He remembered the accident occurred at night, but did not remember the exact time. When his truck was struck, he pulled to the side of the road. Five other vehicles were involved in the collision. Based on what other drivers told him, he believed the driver of a black Chevrolet Blazer caused the accident. He obtained insurance information from that driver, but he "hardly remembered anything" about the vehicle that struck him because he was too nervous.
Santiesteban attempted to contact his supervisor to report the accident but was unable to reach him. It was not until the following day that he was first advised there was an accident form in the glove compartment of his vehicle that needed to be completed. Santiesteban indicated he realized the night of the accident he had been injured. He felt pain that night and the pain worsened the following day. When he reported the accident to his employer the following day, he indicated he was experiencing pain from the accident. Santiesteban described going to Harbor UCLA Hospital a few days after the accident and receiving treatment for his injuries.
A jury convicted Santiesteban of the offense of making a fraudulent statement in his workers’ compensation claim in violation of Insurance Code section 1871.4, subdivision (a)(1) (count 1), and of the offense of attempted perjury under oath in violation of Penal Code sections 118, subdivision (a), 664, subdivision (a) (count 2). Santiesteban appealed the conviction, and the Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction in the case of People v Santiesteban.
In addition to other evidence presented in the criminal case, it was shown that Santiesteban’s vehicle was equipped with a "Teletrac" global positioning device at all times. Katie Witman, Teletrac’s Director of Customer Implementation, testified Telectrac tracks vehicles through cell towers. A report of Santiesteban’s vehicle’s movements and locations was generated for the period from September 30, 2009, through October 2, 2009. At 3:00 a.m. on October 2, 2009, Santiesteban’s vehicle was on the 101 Freeway traveling at 44 miles per hour. At 3:05 a.m., Santiesteban’s vehicle was traveling to 5851 Sunset Boulevard. The vehicle spent about 10 minutes on the 101 Freeway and was never at the 110/101 Freeway interchange. A vehicle stopped for 20 to 25 minutes would have been noted on the Teletrac report.
Edward Messinger, an insurance fraud investigator for the Orange County District Attorney’s office, was assigned to Santiesteban’s case. Messinger verified Santiesteban’s identity and matched it to the records involving his claim. Messinger also matched Santiesteban’s medical records from UCLA to his medical history. The records contained no mention of the October 1, 2009, accident or back pain. The records reflected no doctor visit during September and October 2009.
A review of the record including the possible issues raised by appellate counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. On its own motion, an appellate court with jurisdiction of a case may order correction of clerical errors contained in the abstract of judgment. The case is remanded to the trial court with directions to amend the sentencing minute order to reflect the jail sentence was imposed on both counts. Read More...
DWC Sets Claim Audit Compliance Standards for 2015
Mon, 23 Feb 2015 10:33:31 - Pacific Time
Labor Code §§ 129 and 129.5, require the Audit Unit of the Division of Workers’ Compensation to conduct a routine profile audit review (PAR audit) for all adjusting locations of California workers’ compensation claims at least once every five years. The performance of an audit subject is rated for provision of specific workers’ compensation benefits and measured against standards set by the results of prior audits within the industry. The Administrative Director annually establishes the profile audit review and full compliance audit standards. The 2015 standards are based on the audit results of calendar years 2011 through 2013.
The Profile Audit Review (PAR) Performance Standard for audits conducted in 2015 is 1.53446. Audit subjects with PAR performance ratings of 1.53446 or lower will be required to pay any unpaid compensation, but no penalties will be assessed. If a PAR audit subject’s PAR Performance rating is 1.53447 or higher, the audit will expand to a Full Compliance Audit, and an additional sample of indemnity claims will be audited.
It is estimated that approximately 80% of audit subjects meet or exceed the PAR Performance Standard and that approximately 20% of audit subjects will be subject to a Full Compliance Audit.
The Full Compliance Audit (FCA) Performance Standard for audits conducted in 2015 is 1.68525. FCA audit subjects with an FCA performance rating of 1.68525 or less will be required to pay any unpaid compensation and penalties will be assessed for all violations involving unpaid and late paid compensation. If an FCA subject’s full compliance audit performance rating is 1.83496 or higher, an additional sample of denied claims as well as the expanded samples of indemnity claims will be audited. Penalties will be assessed for all violations as appropriate pursuant to 8CCR§§10111 though 10111.2.
It is estimated that approximately 50% of FCA audit subjects (10% of the PAR audit subjects) will meet or exceed the FCA Performance Standard and that approximately 50% (the 10% poorest performing of all audit subjects) will fail the Full Compliance Audit. Read More...
Past Week News Archive
Court of Appeal Reverses Psyche Award: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 13:33:29 - Pacific Time: Read More...
UCLA Patients Infected by Deadly CRE Bacteria: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 13:33:23 - Pacific Time: Read More...
Salinas Pain Doctor Faces Discipline and Drug Investigation: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:28:21 - Pacific Time: Read More...
DWC Adjusts OMFS Practitioner Services Section: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:28:16 - Pacific Time: Read More...
WCAB Says Applicant Gets One QME Panel at a Time: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 09:12:59 - Pacific Time: Read More...
California Obamacare Botches 100,000 Tax Forms: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 09:12:53 - Pacific Time: Read More...
FDA Identified Research Misconduct Hidden in Plain Sight: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 08:57:33 - Pacific Time: Read More...
CWCI Says Medical Report Costs Fell by 30% Last Year: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 08:57:21 - Pacific Time: Read More...
H-Wave Suit Against SCIF Claiming Blanket UR Denials Reinstated: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 08:16:18 - Pacific Time: Read More...
Authorities Say Elderly Care Industry "Rampant With Fraud": Fri, 13 Feb 2015 08:16:11 - Pacific Time: Read More...