Current through Register Vol. 51, No. 6, December 1, 2024
RELATES TO:
KRS
342.0011(13),
342.020,
342.035.
NECESSITY, FUNCTION, AND CONFORMITY:
KRS
342.260(1) requires the
commissioner to promulgate administrative regulations necessary to carry on the
work of the department and the work of administrative law judges if those
administrative regulations are consistent with KRS Chapter 342 and KRS Chapter
13A.
KRS
342.035(8)(a) requires the
commissioner to develop or adopt practice parameters or evidence-based
treatment guidelines for medical treatment for use by medical providers under
KRS Chapter 342 and to promulgate administrative regulations to implement the
developed or adopted practice parameters or evidence-based treatment
guidelines. This administrative regulation adopts treatment guidelines and
provides guidance to implement them. This administrative regulation does not
abrogate the right, as provided in
KRS
342.020, of an injured employee to choose his
treating physician, or an employer to participate in a managed health care
system.
Section 1. Definitions.
(1) "Carrier" is defined by
KRS
342.0011(6).
(2) "Commissioner" is defined by
KRS
342.0011(9).
(3) "Department" is defined by
KRS
342.0011(8).
(4) "Employee" means those natural persons
constituting an employee subject to the provisions of KRS Chapter 342 as
defined in
KRS 342.640
and the employee's legal counsel.
(5) "Employer" means those persons
constituting an employer as defined in
KRS
342.630, the employer's carrier, insurance
carrier, self-insured group or other payment obligor, third party
administrator, other person acting on behalf of the employer in a workers'
compensation matter, and the employer's legal counsel.
(6) "Evidence-based medicine" means the
process and use of relevant information from peer-reviewed clinical and
epidemiologic research to address a clinical issue by weighing the attendant
risks and benefits to determine whether proposed diagnostic or therapeutic
procedures are appropriate in light of their high probability of producing the
best and most favorable outcome.
(7) "Insurance carrier" is defined by
KRS
342.0011(22).
(8) "Maximum medical improvement" means the
point of stabilization in an employee's recovery from a work injury where
substantial improvement in the human organism is no longer likely.
(9) "Medical emergency" means the sudden
onset of a medical condition manifested by acute symptoms of sufficient
severity, including severe pain, that in the absence of immediate medical
attention may reasonably be expected to result in placing the patient's health
or bodily functions in serious jeopardy or serious dysfunction of any body
organ or part.
(10) "Medical
payment obligor" means any employer, carrier, insurance carrier, self-insurer,
or any person acting on behalf of or as an agent of the employer, carrier,
insurance carrier, or self-insurer.
(11) "Medical provider" means physicians and
surgeons, psychologists, optometrists, dentists, podiatrists, osteopathic and
chiropractic practitioners, physician assistants, and advanced practice
registered nurses, acting within the scope of their license.
(12)
(a)
"Medically necessary" or "medical necessity" means healthcare services,
including medications, that a medical provider, exercising prudent clinical
judgment, would provide to a patient for the purpose of preventing, evaluating,
diagnosing or treating an illness, injury, disease or its symptoms, and that
are:
1. In accordance with generally accepted
standards of medical practice;
2.
Clinically appropriate, in terms of type, frequency, extent, site and duration;
and
3. Considered effective for the
patient's illness, injury, or disease.
(b) Treatment primarily for the convenience
of the patient, physician, or other healthcare provider does not constitute
medical necessity.
(13)
"Physician" is defined by
KRS
342.0011(32).
(14) "Preauthorization" means the process
whereby payment for a medical service or course of treatment is assured in
advance by a carrier.
(15)
"Statement for services" is defined by
803
KAR 25:096, Section 1(5).
(16) "Treatment guidelines" or "guidelines"
are the treatment guidelines developed or adopted by the commissioner pursuant
to
KRS
342.035(8)(a).
(17) "Utilization Review" is defined by
803
KAR 25:190, Section 1(6).
Section 2. Purpose and Adoption.
(1) The purpose of the treatment guidelines
is to facilitate safe and appropriate treatment of work-related injuries and
occupational diseases.
(2) The
commissioner adopts the ODG treatment guidelines as published by MCG Health for
use by medical providers in the treatment of work related injuries and
occupational diseases. The commissioner shall review the guidelines not less
than annually and update or amend this administrative regulation, if necessary,
to ensure that the guidelines are consistent with the provisions of
KRS
342.020 and
KRS
342.035.
Section 3. Application.
(1) The treatment guidelines do not apply to
treatment provided in a medical emergency.
(2) The treatment guidelines do not apply to
urine drug screens.
KRS
342.020(13) governs an
employer's liability for urine drug screens.
(3) The treatment guidelines shall be applied
in the utilization review decision-making process.
(4) Treatment designated as "Recommended"
under the guidelines shall be presumed reasonable and necessary and shall not
require preauthorization. This presumption shall apply to utilization review
and in the resolution of medical disputes. This presumption shall be
rebutta-ble only by clear and convincing evidence.
(5) If a medical provider seeks
preauthorization for treatment designated as "Conditionally Recommended" and
furnishes sound medical reasoning in support of undertaking that treatment, a
medical payment obligor shall consider and address that sound medical reasoning
and shall not deny preauthorization solely on the basis that conditions
precedent have not been met. The failure of a medical payment obligor to comply
with the time requirements in
803
KAR 25:190, Section 5(2) and (3) may result in
sanctions.
(6) Treatment designated
as "Not Recommended" under the guidelines or not addressed in the guidelines
shall require preauthorization.
(7)
The employer shall not be responsible for payment of medical treatment
designated as "Not Recommended" under the guidelines or not addressed in the
treatment guidelines unless it was:
(a)
Provided in a medical emergency;
(b) Authorized by the medical payment
obligor; or
(c) Approved through
the dispute resolution process by an administrative law judge.
(8) Medical providers proposing
treatment designated as "Not Recommended" under the guidelines or not addressed
in the treatment guidelines shall articulate in writing sound medical reasoning
for the proposed treatment, which may include:
(a) Documentation that reasonable treatment
options allowable in the guidelines have been adequately trialed and
failed;
(b) The clinical rationale
that justifies the proposed treatment plan, including criteria that will
constitute a clinically meaningful benefit; or
(c) Any other circumstances that reasonably
preclude recommended or approved treatment options.
(9) Sound medical reasoning furnished by a
medical provider shall be considered before preauthorization of treatment may
be denied.
(10) The treatment
guidelines are not intended to establish a standard for determining
professional liability. The guidelines are not a standard or mandate.
Exceptions to and the proper application of the guidelines require assessment
of each individual course of treatment.
(11) The pharmaceutical formulary adopted in
803 KAR
25:270 shall be part of the medical treatment
guidelines.
(12) Maximum medical
improvement shall not preclude the provision of medical treatment necessary for
the cure and relief from the effects of an injury or occupational disease if
the treatment is medically necessary to maintain function at the maximum
medical improvement level or to improve function following an exacerbation of
the injured employee's condition.
Section 4. Preauthorization.
(1) Requests for preauthorization shall be
subject to utilization review unless the medical payment obligor waives
utilization review. The failure of a medical payment obligor to comply with the
time requirement in
803
KAR 25:190, Section 5(2) and (3) may result in
sanctions
(2) Except as modified in
this Section,
803
KAR 25:190, Sections 5, 7, and 8 apply to all
treatment for which preauthorization is required or requested under this
administrative regulation. If the medical provider has provided sound medical
reasoning for treatment, the medical payment obligor shall not deny the
treatment solely on the basis that it is not designated as "Recommended" under
the guidelines or not addressed in the guidelines.
(3) If the medical payment obligor denies
preauthorization following utilization review, it shall issue a written notice
of denial as required by
803
KAR 25:190, Section 7. The medical provider whose
recommendation for treatment is denied may request reconsideration, and may
require the reconsideration include a peer-to-peer conference with a second
utilization review physician. The request for a peer-to-peer conference shall
be made by electronic communication and shall provide:
(a) A telephone number for the reviewing
physician to call;
(b) A date or
dates for the conference not less than five (5) business days after the date of
the request; and
(c) A one (1)-hour
period during the date or dates specified during which the requesting medical
provider, or a designee, will be available to participate in the conference
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. (Eastern Time), Monday through
Friday.
(4) The
reviewing physician participating in the peer-to-peer conference shall be of
the same specialty as the medical provider requesting
reconsideration.
(5) Failure of the
reviewing physician to participate during the date and time specified shall
result in the approval of the request for preauthorization and approval of the
recommended treatment unless good cause exists for the failure to participate.
In the event of good cause for failure to participate in the peer-to-peer
conference, the reviewing physician shall contact the requesting medical
provider to reschedule the peer-to-peer conference. The rescheduled
peer-to-peer conference shall be held no later than two (2) business days
following the original conference date. Failure of the requesting medical
provider or its designee to participate in the peer-to-peer conference during
the time he or she specified availability may result in denial of the request
for reconsideration.
(6) A written
reconsideration decision shall be rendered within five (5) business days of
date of the peer-to-peer conference. The written decision shall be entitled
"FINAL UTILIZATION REVIEW DECISION."
(7) If a Final Utilization Review Decision is
rendered denying authorization for treatment before an award has been entered
by or agreement approved by an administrative law judge, the requesting medical
provider or the injured employee may file a medical dispute pursuant to
803 KAR
25:012. If a Final Utilization Review Decision is
rendered denying authorization for treatment after an award has been entered by
or agreement approved by an administrative law judge, the employer shall file a
medical dispute pursuant to
803 KAR
25:012.
(8) Pursuant to
KRS
342.285(1), a decision of an
administrative law judge on a medical dispute is subject to review by the
workers' compensation board under the procedures set out in
803 KAR
25:010, Section 22.
Section 5. Effective Dates. The treatment
guidelines apply to all treatment administered on and after September 1,
2020.
STATUTORY AUTHORITY: 342.035, 342.260, 342.265, 342.270,
342.275.