Tag: 2019 News

Kirk Hollingsworth was involved in a fatal accident while working for defendant Heavy Transport, Inc. in June 2016. His wife, Leanne Hollingsworth, and son, Mark Hollingsworth, filed a wrongful death complaint in superior court on January 22, 2018.

Plaintiffs alleged that Heavy Transport did not have workers’ compensation insurance. They also alleged that defendant Bragg Investment Company purported to have merged with Heavy Transport in 1986, but that the two companies had always maintained separate operations. Plaintiffs asserted that Bragg “sought to extend Worker’s Compensation Benefits” to them. Plaintiffs also alleged that defective Bragg equipment contributed to the incident.

On March 14, 2018, Bragg and Heavy Transport filed an application for adjudication of claim with the WCAB. The application listed Bragg as the employer, included insurance information, and noted that a lawsuit had been filed.

Bragg and Heavy Transport demurred to plaintiffs’ complaint. They asserted that Heavy Transport was a fictitious business name for Bragg, and therefore they were the same entity. Bragg had a workers’ compensation policy that covered the accident, so plaintiffs’ action was barred by workers’ compensation exclusivity. The Superior Court overruled the demurrer.

In December 2018 the WCAB determined that the accident had occurred in the course of decedent’s employment. The WCAB then set a hearing for February 19, 2019 to determine if any applicable workers’ compensation insurance covered the incident.

Defendants made an application to the Superior Court that the civil case be stayed until the WCAB determined the insurance issue, which would then determine which tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction. Plaintiffs also had filed a motion with the WCAB to stay those proceedings, but rather than grant the motion, the WCAB set the case for trial before a WCAB arbitrator on June 6, 2019, on the issue of insurance coverage. The Superior Court conceded jurisdiction to the WCAB on the issue of insurance coverage.

Plaintiffs then filed a petition for writ of mandate in the Court of Appeal , and requested an order staying the June 6 arbitration scheduled in the WCAB proceeding. It issued an alternative writ and an order staying the WCAB proceedings, and requested briefing from the parties.

This case presented a relatively simple question: Which tribunal – the superior court or the WCAB – should resolve the questions that will determine whether the superior court or the WCAB has exclusive jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims?

The Supreme Court in Scott v. Industrial Acc. Commission (1956) 46 Cal.2d 76, 81, decided this issue in 1956, and held that whichever tribunal exercised jurisdiction first should make the necessary findings to determine which tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over the remainder of the matter.

The Court of Appeal followed that rule, and found that the trial court erred by deferring to the WCAB to determine jurisdiction in the published case of Hollingsworth et al., v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County et al., (2019) 84 Cal.Comp.Cases 718.

The WCAB argued the statement in Sea World Corp. v. Superior Court (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 494, at p. 501 that “[p]recedential jurisdiction” – concurrent jurisdiction to determine exclusive jurisdiction – “may be the subject of waiver by the court having it.”

In Sea World the court cited Scott and several similar cases, and noted that “the court where jurisdiction first attaches may yield it, and that it is the right of the court to insist upon or waive its jurisdiction.” Here, however, the evidence does not support a finding of waiver or estoppel, and neither the WCAB or defendants assert facts to support such a finding.

To the contrary, from the initiation of the action, plaintiffs and defendants consistently asserted their respective positions regarding jurisdiction, unlike the employer in Sea World. Thus, waiver or estoppel does not compel us to depart from the rule in Scott.

Here, the superior court exercised jurisdiction first. Plaintiffs’ complaint was filed on January 22, 2018, and defendants’ demurrer was filed on March 5, 2018. Defendants’ WCAB application was filed on March 14, 2018. Under Scott, the appropriate tribunal to determine the question of exclusive jurisdiction is the superior court, because that tribunal exercised jurisdiction first.

The  FDA is approving new drugs so fast that companies are now preparing for a green light months in advance of the scheduled decision date, a pace that’s helping patients with rare or untreatable diseases but raising alarm among consumer advocates.

Global Blood Therapeutics Inc., maker of a new sickle cell disease drug called Oxbryta, built a booth to showcase the medicine at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology that begins this weekend — even though the Food and Drug Administration’s deadline for approval was Feb. 26.

The move paid off: Oxbryta was given the go-ahead by the FDA on Nov. 25, almost three months ahead of schedule, and the branded booth will make its debut at the ASH conference in Orlando, Florida, on Saturday.

Oxbryta’s approval added to a growing number of breakthrough products that have beaten their FDA deadlines by weeks and sometimes months. For normal medicines, the agency typically has 10 months to issue a ruling. For those with exceptional benefits, or that treat conditions with few existing therapies, it offers a priority review that takes just six months. From mid-October to mid-November, the agency approved five medicines in as little as eight weeks.

The shift is emerging as the FDA is approving new drugs at a record pace, and breakthroughs in biotechnology and genetics are enabling drug companies and their scientists to provide more specific data to federal regulators.

But even as drugmakers, investors and patients cheer on the agency’s pace, patient-safety advocates argue that speed comes at a price. Studies show medicines approved on a faster time line are more likely to have safety problems emerge after they become broadly available, while other treatments offer fewer benefits than anticipated.

While the Trump administration has focused on reducing regulation across the U.S., the FDA’s new-found speed had its genesis more than a quarter-century ago. Drugmakers agreed to pay the agency user fees in return for firm deadlines after years of wild guesses. Congress and the FDA layered on programs providing incentives for drug developers to craft products for patient groups with critical unmet needs, especially for rare conditions.

It’s not just speed. The FDA also is approving more drugs, hitting a record 59 new therapies in 2018. Almost three-fourths received a priority review. That, combined with more efficient data collection, is responsible for the faster FDA action, said Aaron Kesselheim, a professor at Harvard Medical School. Companies are also communicating earlier and more often with the agency, which can head off issues at preliminary stages and help them get products through on the first attempt, he said.

Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s Trikafta, a triple combination of drugs to treat cystic fibrosis, won FDA approval in October, five months earlier than expected. Investors dubbed it an early Christmas gift from the FDA.

Clearance for Novartis AG’s Adakveo, another new medication for sickle cell disease, came in November. It was 62 days ahead of the FDA’s deadline, known as the PDUFA date. BeiGene Ltd.’s Brukinsa was approved three months ahead of schedule for mantle cell lymphoma.

Access to care is a major concern in all healthcare systems, as well as workers’ compensation programs that are mandated to provide local care under MPN rules. Although hospitals can improve financially when they join larger health systems, the merger may also reduce access to services for patients in rural areas, according to a new RAND study reported in a story by Reuters Health.

After an affiliation, rural hospitals are more likely to lose onsite imaging and obstetric and primary care services, researchers report in a special issue of the journal Health Affairs devoted to rural health issues in the United States.

“The major concern when you think about health and healthcare in rural America is access,” said lead study author Claire O’Hanlon of the RAND Corporation in Santa Monica, California.

More than 100 rural hospitals in the U.S. have closed since 2010, the study authors write.

“Hospitals in rural areas are struggling to stay open for a lot of different reasons, but many are looking to health-system affiliation as a way to keep the doors open,” she told Reuters Health by email. “But when you give up local control of your hospital to a health system, a lot of things can change that may or may not be good for the hospital or its patients.”

Using annual surveys by the American Hospital Association, O’Hanlon and colleagues compared 306 rural hospitals that affiliated during 2008-2017 with 994 nonaffiliated rural hospitals on 12 measures, including quality, service utilization and financial performance. The study team also looked at emergency department and nonemergency visits, long-term debt, operating margins, patient experience scores and hospital readmissions.

They found that rural hospitals that affiliated had a significant reduction in outpatient non-emergency visits, onsite diagnostic imaging technologies such as MRI machines, and availability of obstetric and primary care services. For instance, obstetric services dropped by 7-14% annually in the five years following affiliation.

At the same time, the affiliated hospitals also experienced an increase in operating margins, from an average baseline of -1.6%, typical increases were 1.6 to 3.6 percentage points, the authors note. The better financial performance appeared to be driven largely by decreased operating costs.

Overall, patient experience scores, long-term debt ratios, hospital readmissions and emergency department visits were similar for affiliating and non-affiliating hospitals.

“Research on these mergers has been mixed, with some suggestions they are beneficial for the community (access to capital, more specialty services, keep the hospital open) and other evidence that there are costs (employment reductions, loss of local control, increase in prices),” said Mark Holmes of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who wasn’t involved in the study.

Hospital groups on Wednesday filed a lawsuit to stop the Trump administration’s price transparency rule that requires hospitals to disclose negotiated rates with insurers.

The suit, filed by the American Hospital Association (AHA), among other hospital groups, argues that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) rule violates the First Amendment by provoking compelled speech and reaches beyond the intended meaning of “standard charges” transparency in the Affordable Care Act.

The groups filed the suit in the U.S. District Court in Washington and are asking for an expedited decision to prevent hospitals from needing to prepare for the rule if it is ultimately ruled unconstitutional.

The hospitals argue that the efforts and cost required to follow the rule are overreaching as they would be required to release massive spreadsheets with data on negotiated drugs, supplies, facility and physician care prices. The estimated cost to hospitals to follow the rule is between $38.7 million to $39.4 million.

“The burden of compliance with the rule is enormous, and way out of line with any projected benefits associated with the rule,” according to the suit.

The suit also alleges the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) does not have the authority to enforce the rule, according to a release from the AHA.

“Instead of giving patients relevant information about costs, this rule will lead to widespread confusion and even more consolidation in the commercial health insurance industry,” Rick Pollack, president and CEO of AHA, said in the release. “We stand ready to work with CMS and other stakeholders to advance real solutions for patients.”

The rule, which was finished last month, is part of the Trump administration’s efforts to increase price transparency and to develop more competition within the health care industry, moves which they say would help lower medical costs.

White House officials have said that a lack of cooperation from hospitals on the regulation indicates they are prioritizing themselves over consumers.

“Hospitals should be ashamed that they aren’t willing to provide American patients the cost of a service before they purchase it,” HHS spokeswoman Caitlin Oakley said. “President Trump and Secretary Azar are committed to providing patients the information they need to make their own informed health care decisions and will continue to fight for transparency in America’s health care system.”

The hospitals say the rule will have the opposite of the intended effect and cause competitors to increase prices to match their rivals to a point where consumers will decide against receiving care.

The Association of American Medical Colleges, the Children’s Hospital Association and the Federation of American Hospitals also signed onto the suit.

For most of this decade, the average medical cost per indemnity claim in California has declined. Anti-fraud measures by the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR), the California Department of Insurance (CDI), local district attorneys and insurer special investigative units also contributed to the significant reduction in medical costs. As part of this effort, the DIR has, as of August 2019, indicted and/or suspended more than 500 medical providers from participating in the California workers’ compensation system.

In 2018, the WCIRB published a study evaluating the potential impact of medical fraud enforcement.

The 2018 study showed that over 7% of total medical payments were made to Indicted Providers, who rendered more than 4% of the medical services in the second half of 2012. By the second half of 2017, the shares of both medical payments and transactions to these Indicted Providers had fallen by over two thirds.

The WCIRB has now released Treatment Patterns of Medical Providers Indicted for Fraud in California Workers’ Compensation, a follow-up analysis to its 2018 study that evaluated the potential impact of medical provider fraud enforcement.

The new research brief compares the treatment patterns and types of services rendered by indicted/suspended providers (indicted providers) to non-indicted/suspended providers (other providers) as well as the regional variations and differences in treatment levels on cumulative trauma (CT) claims. The WCIRB’s findings include:

The average total medical paid per indicted provider was 10 times higher than other providers between 2013 and 2018, largely because indicted providers treated significantly more injured workers and rendered more services per injured worker.

The shares of medical payments for medical-legal (ML) and medical liens of indicted providers were two to three times higher than other providers. Indicted providers were also paid a significantly higher share for complex office visits and ML evaluations.

Indicted providers in the Los Angeles Basin accounted for about half of indicted providers linked to WCIRB data, but they received more than 90 percent of the medical payments made to these indicted providers. The share of indemnity claims involving CT within the LA Basin was consistently higher for indicted providers between 2013 and 2015, yet the pattern did not hold in 2016.