TITLE 28.INSURANCE

Part 2. TEXAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION

Chapter 165. REJECTED RISK: INJURY PREVENTION SERVICES

28 TAC §§165.1 - 165.3, 165.7

The Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (the commission) proposes amendments to §§165.1, 165.2, 165.3, and 165.7, concerning Rejected Risk: Injury Prevention Services. The amendments are proposed to replace references to the Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund with references to Texas Mutual Insurance Company, correct certain references to the Texas Insurance Code, and remove an unnecessarily restrictive requirement for safety consultants.

The Texas Register published text shows words proposed to be added to or deleted from the current text, and should be read to determine all proposed changes.

The Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund's name was changed to Texas Mutual Insurance Company by the 77th Texas Legislature in House Bill 3458 (HB-3458). The proposed changes would delete from §§165.1, 165.2, 165.3, and 165.7 all references to the Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund or "the Fund" and replace them with Texas Mutual Insurance Company.

The commission also proposes to amend §165.1 by changing certain references to the Texas Insurance Code, as a result of changes made to that statute by the 77th Texas Legislature in HB-3458.

The commission also proposes to amend §165.2 by deleting subsection (e), which requires a safety consultant to file a program review report with the commission within 24 hours of signature by the employer. This requirement is unnecessary because there is no demonstrated need to have the program review report filed within 24 hours of signature. Section 165.2(f) requires a safety consultant to file the report within 30 days after the policyholder receives notice of identification, and the 24-hour requirement does not further or otherwise enhance the commission's regulatory responsibilities within the Rejected Risk Requiring Injury Prevention Services Program.

Certain minor grammatical and punctuation changes, and changes for consistency purposes, are also proposed.

William R. DeCabooter, Director of the commission's Division of Worker' Health & Safety, has determined that for the first five-year period the proposed rule is in effect there will be no fiscal implications for state or local governments as a result of enforcing or administering the rule.

Local government and state government as a covered regulated entity will be impacted in the same manner as described later in this preamble for persons required to comply with the rule as proposed.

Mr. DeCabooter has also determined that for each year of the first five years the rules as proposed are in effect the public benefits anticipated as a result of enforcing the rules will be the removal of certain terminology and statutory references that are inconsistent with current statutory language, as well as the removal of an unnecessary and potentially burdensome filing requirement of safety consultants.

There will be no anticipated economic costs to persons who are required to comply with the rules as proposed.

There will be no costs of compliance for small businesses and no adverse economic impact on small businesses or micro-businesses as a result of the proposed amendments.

Comments on the proposal must be received by 5:00 p.m., June 16, 2004. You may comment via the Internet by accessing the commission's website at www.twcc.state.tx.us and then clicking on "Laws, Rules & Forms" and then clicking on "Proposed Rules." This medium for commenting will help you organize your comments by rule chapter. You may also comment by emailing your comments to RuleComments@ twcc.state.tx.us or by mailing or delivering your comments to Linda Velásquez at the Office of the General Counsel, Mailstop #4-D, Texas Workers' Compensation Commission, 7551 Metro Center Drive, Ste. 100, Austin, TX 78744.

Commenters are requested to clearly identify by number the specific rule and paragraph commented upon. The commission may not be able to respond to comments that cannot be linked to a particular proposed rule. Along with your comment, it is suggested that you include the reasoning for the comment in order for commission staff to fully evaluate your recommendations.

Based upon various considerations, including comments received and the staff's or commissioners' review of those comments, or based upon the commissioners' action at the public meeting, the rule as adopted may be revised from the rule as proposed in whole or in part. Persons in support of the rule as proposed, in whole or in part, may wish to comment to that effect.

A public hearing on this proposal will be held on June 16, 2004, at the Austin central office of the commission (7551 Metro Center Drive, Suite 100, Austin, Texas). Those persons interested in attending the public hearing should contact the Commission's Office of Executive Communication at (512) 804-4430 to confirm the date, time, and location of the public hearing for this proposal. The public hearing schedule will also be available on the commission's website at www.twcc.state.tx.us .

The amendment is proposed under the Texas Labor Code, §402.061, which authorizes the commission to adopt rules necessary to administer the Act; and Texas Insurance Code, art. 5.76-3, which establishes the Texas Mutual Insurance Company and sets forth certain functions and responsibilities of the commission in connection with the administration of an accident prevention program for policyholders of the Texas Mutual Insurance Company; and Texas Insurance Code, art. 5.76-4, which establishes the Texas Mutual Insurance Company as insurer of last resort for workers' compensation insurance and requires it to insure, subject to certain exceptions and at a higher premium, any risk that tenders the necessary premium and any applicable accident prevention service fees.

The amendment is proposed under Texas Labor Code, §402.061; and Texas Insurance Code, articles 5.76-3 and 5.76-4.

No other code, statute, or article is affected by this rule action.

§165.1.Identification and Notification of Certain Policyholders Insured by the Texas Mutual Insurance Company [ Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund ] Acting as the Insurer of Last Resort.

(a) The Texas Mutual Insurance Company [ Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund (the Fund) ] shall provide a listing of the policyholders requiring accident prevention services (Rejected Risk employers) to the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission's Division of Worker's Health and Safety (the division). This list shall include [ , in addition to ] those employers identified by the Texas Mutual Insurance Company through application of the criteria found in the Texas Insurance Code, art. 5.76-3, §8, and art. 5.76-4 [ Article 5.76-3, Section 10, employers who have been in business less than three years and meet criteria for a safety consultation established by the Fund. ]

(b) A policyholder [ , ] subject to the Texas Insurance Code, art. 5.76-3, §8(c) or §8(d), [ Article 5.76-3, 10(c) ], whose corporate office is located outside the state of Texas shall, upon receipt of notification by the Texas Mutual Insurance Company [ Fund ] of the [ policyholders ] requirement to obtain a safety consultation [ participate in the program ] as a condition of insurance, provide the Texas Mutual Insurance Company [ Fund ] the following information:

(1) the name and title of the senior official in Texas with the authority to commit funds and to establish policy, procedures, and actions required to implement the accident prevention plan and address the exposures identified in the hazard exposure survey;

(2) the official's mailing address; and

(3) the official's business telephone number.

(c) Information required by subsection (b) of this section shall be mailed to the Texas Mutual Insurance Company [ Fund ] at the appropriate address.

§165.2.Safety Consultation.

(a) Policyholders who have not had an accident prevention plan developed and implemented in the last six months prior to notification shall, not later than 30 days following the effective date of the policy, or receipt of notice of identification as a Rejected Risk employer, whichever occurs later, complete a safety consultation using a source approved by the division pursuant to §164.9 and §164.10 of this title (relating to Approval of Professional Sources for Safety Consultations; and Removal From the List of Approved Sources). The consultation may be provided by:

(1) the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission's Division of Workers' Health and Safety (the division);

(2) the Texas Mutual Insurance Company [ Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund (the Fund) ]; or

(3) another professional source.

(b) Policyholders who have had an accident prevention plan developed and implemented within the six months prior to notification of their identification as a Rejected Risk employer must obtain division review of the plan for adequacy, to include an on-site visit.

(c) The division shall provide the Texas Mutual Insurance Company [ Fund ] with a list of approved professional sources. If the Texas Mutual Insurance Company [ Fund ] elects to provide the policyholder with safety consultation and accident prevention plan development services, the Texas Mutual Insurance Company [ Fund ] shall include a copy of the list with the notification letter to the policyholder. If the Texas Mutual Insurance Company [ Fund ] elects to provide such services, the list will be provided to the policyholder by the Texas Mutual Insurance Company [ Fund ] at the request of the policyholder.

(d) The safety consultant, identified in subsection (a) of this section, shall visit the policyholder's work place, review existing safety programs, conduct a walk through at each appropriate job site to include a hazard exposure survey, and prepare a program review report. The report shall be in a written format prescribed by the commission.

[ (e) The program review report(s) and all subparts shall be filed by the consultant with the division within 24 hours of the date of the policyholder's signature on the program review report.]

(e) [ (f) ] The initial program review report must be delivered to the division of Workers' Health and Safety no later than 30 days after the policyholder receives the notice of identification. An extension of 30 days may be obtained from the division for good cause.

(f) [ (g) ] The safety consultants identified in subsection (a) of this section may charge the employer for consultations provided under this section [ the Rejected Risk program ].

§165.3.Formulation and Components of Accident Prevention Plan.

(a) Policyholders who have not had an accident prevention plan developed in the last six months prior to notification will, within 30 days of the date of the safety consultant's initial report, develop an accident prevention plan. This plan will be consistent with established state safety and health codes and with accepted industry practices. The accident prevention plan shall be developed with the assistance of an Approved Professional Source as defined in §164.9 of this title (relating to Approval of Professional Sources for Safety Consultations), and shall be in the format prescribed by the commission. The policyholder shall submit the completed accident prevention plan, developed and signed by the policyholder and the Approved Professional Source, to the division. The Approved Professional Source's signature on the accident prevention plan cover sheet certifies that the accident prevention plan meets the format prescribed by the commission. The format shall include the following components and specify the individual responsible for each, by position or title:

(1) a management component with a written safety policy statement and assignment of responsibilities and authority;

(2) analysis component which includes a review of safety program documentation, existing operations, and injury trends. The analysis will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the existing programs and to detect existing or potential trends. The analysis component will contain a statement as to the interval between the accomplishment of the analyses;

(3) a safety program recordkeeping system component;

(4) a safety and health education and training component with a statement as to the interval between training sessions;

(5) a safety audit/inspection component with a statement as to the interval between safety audits/inspections;

(6) an accident investigation component to identify the cause factors of injuries, and plan and record corrective actions; and

(7) a component to ensure review and revision of the safety program when changes in operations, equipment, or employee activities are determined or anticipated, to ensure continued effectiveness of the program requirements. This component also includes the periodic review and revisions of the safety program including a statement as to the interval (minimum of annually) between reviews.

(b) Policyholders who have had an accident prevention plan developed and implemented within the six months prior to notification as a Rejected Risk Employer and verified and approved by the Texas Mutual Insurance Company [ the Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund ] or the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission's Division of Workers' Health and Safety (the division) will continue implementation of the plan and obtain an inspection by the division as provided in §165.6 of this title (relating to Follow-up Inspection by the Division).

(c) Reference material for the development of an accident prevention plan may be obtained from the division.

(d) An implementation time line, not to exceed three months after the formulation of the plan, shall be developed and included with the plan.

(e) If the policyholder disagrees with any or all of the plan, the policyholder shall sign the accident prevention plan cover sheet and attach a statement containing the specific reasons for disagreement to the plan and what alternative measures the policyholder proposes to meet the objectives of the program. The division will review the areas of disagreement and notify the policyholder and the safety consultant of the decision on each area of the disagreement.

(f) The policyholder's signature is understood to exclude those areas of the plan for which a disagreement has been attached to the plan, pending review by the division or a formal appeal.

(g) If the division finds it is practical to do so, the division may direct the policyholder to begin implementation of any or all parts of the plan that are not subject to the policyholder's disagreement. The time lines specified in the plan shall remain in effect for those parts of the plan the policyholder is directed to implement.

(h) The policyholder shall be responsible for filing the accident prevention plan that has been reviewed by the Approved Professional Source and signed as meeting the criteria in subsection (a) of this section with the division no later than 30 days after completion of the safety consultation and no later than 90 days after the policyholder received notification of identification as a Rejected Risk employer. Delays requested for good cause may be granted by the division.

§165.7.Report of Follow-Up Inspection.

(a) As soon as practical, but not later than 30 days from the date of the follow-up inspection, the policyholder, the safety consultant, and the Texas Mutual Insurance Company [ Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund (the Fund) ], shall be provided copies of the follow-up inspection report by the division.

(b) The report shall be in writing and shall specify whether the policyholder has, or has not, implemented the accident prevention plan or other acceptable corrective measures approved by the division.

(c) If the policyholder is found not to have implemented the accident prevention plan, the report shall also contain a list of the specific areas of the accident prevention plan which have not been implemented.

(d) Failure or refusal to implement the accident prevention plan is an administrative violation with penalty not to exceed $5,000 for each day of non-compliance. The Texas Workers' Compensation Commission's Division of Workers' Health and Safety (the division) shall refer the matter to the Commission's Division of Compliance and Practices to pursue the administrative violation if:

(1) the policyholder fails or refuses to implement the accident prevention plan or approved alternative measures;

(2) the policyholder does not cancel coverage within 30 days after the date of the division's determination of such failure or refusal; and

(3) the Texas Mutual Insurance Company [ Fund ] notifies the division that it [ the Fund ] will not cancel the coverage.

This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be within the agency's legal authority to adopt.

Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on April 19, 2004.

TRD-200402578

Susan Cory

General Counsel

Texas Workers' Compensation Commission

Earliest possible date of adoption: May 30, 2004

For further information, please call: (512) 804-4287


Chapter 180. MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT

Subchapter B. MEDICAL BENEFIT REGULATION

28 TAC §§180.20, 180.21, 180.27

The Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (the commission) proposes amendments to §180.20 (Commission Approved Doctor List), §180.21 (Commission Designated Doctor List), and §180.27 (Sanctions Process / Appeals / Restoration / Reinstatement). The amendments are proposed to expedite commission actions to either deny a doctor admission to the commission's Approved Doctor List (ADL) and/or Designated Doctor List (DDL), or delete a doctor from the commission's Approved Doctor List (ADL) when the doctor's license has been revoked, suspended, or has not been renewed by the appropriate licensing or certification authority. The proposed amendment shortens the doctor's timeframe for responding to the commission's notice of intent from 15 days to five working days.

The accelerated timeframe is also proposed to apply to all grounds for Executive Director deletions made pursuant to §180.26(b) of this title and their parallel applications as bases for denial of admission to the ADL and/or DDL.

The Texas Register published text shows words proposed to be added to or deleted from the current text, and should be read to determine all proposed changes.

House Bill 2600 (HB-2600), passed by the 77th Texas Legislature in its 2001 session, made sweeping changes to the process by which a doctor's eligibility to practice within the Texas workers' compensation system was determined. Prior to HB-2600, Texas Labor Code §408.023(a) provided that each doctor licensed in this state on January 1, 1993 was on the commission's list of approved doctors unless subsequently deleted and not reinstated. HB-2600 changed this provision to require doctors to apply for admission to the approved doctor list and to meet commission adopted criteria regarding training, licensure, and disclosure of financial interests.

Executive Director Deletions From the ADL

In keeping with these greater list management responsibilities, the legislature, in Texas Labor Code §408.0231, authorizes the commission's Executive Director to delete doctors from the approved list who fail to meet registration requirements, who are deceased, whose license to practice in this state is revoked, suspended, or not renewed by the appropriate licensing authority, and who voluntarily request removal from the list. To implement this charge, the commission adopted rule provisions at §§180.26(b) and 180.27(f) of this title. Section 180.26(b)(4) defined suspensions and revocations to include stays, deferments, and probations to set a high standard for system practitioners. Section 180.27(f) established the process by which doctors would be deleted by the Executive Director.

In the months following implementation of the commission's new ADL on September 1, 2003, it has come to the commission's attention that the 15-day period, allotted for a doctor to respond to a notice of intent to delete, unnecessarily delays the removal of a doctor who has lost all privileges to practice with the appropriate licensing or certification authority. Though deletions under these situations are somewhat academic (as the doctor may not legally practice), and risk to injured workers is accordingly minimized, the delayed removal can, in some scenarios, create billing problems for insurance carriers when the termination date for system participation lags behind the effective date of the licensing or certification authority's action. Section 180.26(b)(4) also requires removal of a doctor whose license suspension or revocation has been stayed, deferred, or probated by the licensing or certification authority. The proposed expedited timeframe for response applies to this category of ADL removals also. The proposed amendment to §180.27(f) accelerates the removal process by reducing the timeframe for the doctor's response to five working days (as defined at §102.3(b) of this title). Importantly, the level of due process afforded the doctor has not changed, it has merely been expedited by the proposed amendment in these appropriate circumstances. The doctor is still afforded an opportunity to respond to the commission's notice of intent, and in these instances, extensive responses should not be necessary.

The other grounds for Executive Director deletions found at §180.26(b) are equally proper subjects for an accelerated deletion processes. There is no basis for extending a voluntary request for removal or the academic removal of a deceased doctor's name from the list beyond a 5-working-day period. That timeframe and opportunity to respond is sufficient to ensure proper identification of the doctor. Similarly, a 5-working-day period affords a doctor sufficient time to correct any mistakes regarding training, testing and registration requirements under §180.26(b)(1) of this title.

The proposed amendment to §180.27 also clarifies the effective date of deletion for both a non-responsive doctor (the day following the fifth working day after the date the doctor received notice of intent, §180.27(f)(2)(A)) and a doctor whose response has not satisfied the Executive Director or designee (the day following the date the doctor receives notice of the deletion, §180.27(f)(2)(C)(ii)). Additionally, the proposed amendment specifies the date of receipt for all notices as that established by methods found at §102.5(d) of this title.

In an effort to standardize time periods for doctor responses to proposed commission actions that are not subject to the proposed 5-working-day timeframe, the commission proposes to amend the 14-day period of §180.27(e)(1)(B) to 15 days.

Application of §180.26(b) Criteria to ADL and DDL Application Denials

The same rationales that underlie the accelerated timeframe for Executive Director deletions support proportionate changes to the response period for denials of applications for admission to the ADL and/or DDL. Unlike the proposed changes to §180.27, the proposed changes to §§180.20(g) and 180.21(g) create a two-tiered response scheme for doctors: an accelerated 5-working-day period for application denials based on the same grounds given for deletions under §180.26(b); and the current 15-day period for all other denial grounds.

In implementing HB-2600, the commission adopted §180.20 of this title (relating to Commission Approved Doctor List) whereby the commission created the new ADL and rendered the prior list null and void. Similarly, the commission adopted §180.21 of this title (relating to Commission Designated Doctor List) to create registration and training requirements for designated doctors. Both rules provide criteria for denial of the application for admission to the respective lists. Importantly, the provisions at §§180.20(f)(3) and 180.21(f)(5) permit denial of an application based upon §180.26 criteria. Accordingly, the same grounds used for deletion from the ADL may be used to deny an application for admission to either list. Hence, the §180.26(b) criteria for Executive Director deletions (as discussed above) may be used for denial purposes. Further, the grounds which mandate denial of admission to the ADL at §180.20(f)(1) and to the DDL at §§180.21(f)(1)-(3) parallel the grounds for deletion found at §180.26(b)(1).

Consequently, the proposed amendments at §§180.20(g)(3) and 180.21(g)(3) incorporate the shortened 5-working-day response period for application denials based upon: a doctor's failure to complete required training and application requirements; a doctor's death; a doctor's voluntary request to withdraw the application; and significantly, the revocation, suspension or voluntary relinquishment of the license to practice. The same balance that was struck in the Executive Director deletion process between appropriate levels of due process and the commission's interest in ensuring the delivery of high quality health care applies to the application denial process.

Other issues addressed in the amendments to §§180.20 and 180.21 include correcting the discrepancy between the 14 and 15-day time periods at §§180.20(g)(2) and 180.21(g)(2). The standard time period is proposed to be 15 days. The amendments to §§180.20 and 180.21 clarify the effective date of denial for both a non-responsive doctor (the day following the fifth working day after the date the doctor received notice of intent to deny, at §§180.20(g)(3)(A) and 180.21(g)(3)(A)) and a doctor whose response has not satisfied the commission (the day following the date the doctor receives notice of the denial, at §§180.20(g)(3)(B) and 180.21(g)(3)(B)). Finally, the proposed amendments to §§180.20 and 180.21 specify the date of receipt for all notices as that established by methods found at §102.5(d) of this title.

Proposed Amendments to §180.20. Commission Approved Doctor List.

Proposed subsection (g) addresses the notification to a doctor of the commission's approval or denial of the doctor's application to the ADL. The proposed amendment adds language to include approvals with condition(s) or restriction(s). In addition, paragraph (g)(2) changes the timeframe for a doctor to respond to the denial or admission with condition(s) or restriction(s) to the ADL from 14 to 15 days, clarifying inconsistent provisions. Further, subparagraph (g)(2)(A) clarifies that the commission's notice shall be final effective the day following the 15-day response time. New proposed paragraph (g)(3) addresses denials issued in accordance with §180.20(f)(1) and §180.20 (f)(3) (where narrowly restricted to reliance on §180.26(b)). Subparagraph (g)(3)(A) establishes that if a response is not received by the fifth working day after the date the doctor received notice, the action shall be final effective the following day and no further notice shall be sent. Subparagraph (g)(3)(B) addresses the commission's final actions to a doctor's response which disagrees with the reason(s) given for the commission's denial to the ADL. If the commission's final decision is still a denial of the doctor's admission to the ADL, the commission shall explain the reasons for the denial. The denial shall be effective the day following the date the doctor receives notice of the denial. Language has been added to paragraph (g)(4) that clarifies the date of receipt for notices shall be determined in accordance with §102.5(d) of this title.

Proposed Amendments to §180.21. Commission Designated Doctor List.

Proposed subsection (g) addresses the notification to a doctor of the commission's approval or denial of the doctor's application to the DDL. Paragraph (g)(2) changes the timeframe for a doctor to respond to the denial to the DDL from 14 to 15 days, clarifying inconsistent provisions. New proposed paragraph (g)(3) addresses denials issued in accordance with §§180.20(f)(1)-(3) and §180.20 (f)(5) (where narrowly restricted to reliance on §180.26(b)). Subparagraph (g)(3)(A) establishes that if a response is not received by the fifth working day after the date the doctor received notice, the action shall be final effective the following day and no further notice shall be sent. Language has been added to paragraph (g)(4) that clarifies the date of receipt for notices shall be determined in accordance with §102.5(d) of this title.

Proposed Amendments to §180.27. Sanctions Process/Appeals/Restoration/Reinstatement.

Proposed subsection (e) specifies the reinstatement process for doctors under commission sanction. Subparagraph (e)(1)(B) changes the timeframe for a doctor to respond to commission notice denied reinstatement from 14 to 15 days. This harmonizes the timeframe with other timeframes found in the proposed amendments to §§180.20, 180.21, and 180.27.

Proposed subsection (f) establishes the process by which the Executive Director deletes doctors from the ADL pursuant to §180.26(b). Subsection (f)(2) changes the timeframe for a doctor to respond to the denial from 14 to five working days. Subparagraph (f)(2)(A) establishes that if a response is not received by the fifth working day after the date the doctor received notice of intent, the action shall be final effective the following day and no further notice shall be sent. Subparagraph (f)(2)(B) establishes that if the response is an agreement to the deletion, the doctor shall be deleted effective the earlier of the date the doctor agrees to the deletion or the day following the fifth working day after the date the doctor received the notice of intent and no subsequent notice to be sent. Subparagraph (f)(C) addresses the Executive Director's actions to a doctor's timely response, which disagrees with the reason(s) given for the Executive Director's denial. Subparagraphs (f)(2)(C)(i) and (ii) state that if the Executive Director or designee determine that the grounds for deletion do not exist, the doctor shall be notified that he was not deleted; or, if the grounds for deletion do exist, the doctor shall be deleted effective the day following the date the doctor receives notice of the deletion. Language has been added to subparagraph (f)(3) that clarifies the date of receipt for notices shall be determined in accordance with §102.5(d) of this title.

Mr. Robert L. Shipe, Director of Medical Review, has determined that for the first five-year period the proposed rule is in effect there will be no fiscal implications for state or local governments as a result of enforcing or administering the rule.

There will be no fiscal implications for local governments with respect to enforcing or administering the proposed rule amendment, as local government has no regulatory role in the rule amendment as proposed.

Local government and state government as a covered regulated entity will be impacted in the same manner as described later in this preamble for persons required to comply with the rule as proposed.

Mr. Shipe has also determined that for each year of the first five years the rule as proposed is in effect the public benefits anticipated as a result of enforcing the rule will be the quicker removal of doctors from the commission's ADL who no longer meet the requirements to be on the list, and faster actions after the initial notice of intent to deny a doctor's application to the ADL for those doctors who do not meet requirements for the list.

The proposed rules will provide for a shorter timeframe for the Executive Director to administratively remove doctors from the ADL. Shortening the response period for the doctor to respond from 15 days to five working days will expedite the process of removing doctors who should no longer be practicing in the Texas workers' compensation system.

Insurance carriers, and ultimately employers, may experience a slight decrease in costs due to the expedited deletion of doctors from the ADL. This expedited deletion may decrease costs associated with these doctors' continued participation in the workers' compensation system while the removal is in process. Because of this quicker removal of doctors from the ADL, reimbursement for medical services by doctors who do not meet the requirements may cease at an earlier date than in the current process. Also, carriers may experience reduced income benefit costs due to less lost time from work for injured employees who may not have been released to return to work by a doctor who is in the process of being removed from the ADL. However, there is insufficient information available to predict the total reduction for these costs.

Injured employees will benefit from these proposed amendments as this decreases the injured employee's potential for receiving inappropriate treatment by a doctor who is in the process of being removed from the ADL and who does not meet the requirements for the ADL. Also, employees are not expected to see an increase in costs as a result of these proposed amendments. Employees who are currently kept off of work longer than is appropriate by doctors who are in the process of being removed from the ADL might receive fewer income benefits under the proposed amendments but this is offset by the benefit of possibly returning to work sooner.

There may be slight economic costs to doctors who are required to comply with the rule amendments as proposed. If a response is not received timely, within five working days, the doctor is deleted from the ADL effective the following day. Doctors might incur a slight increase in costs due to an additional administrative burden caused by the expedited time to file a response.

There will be proportionate costs of compliance for small businesses and micro-businesses to the extent of their involvement in the ADL process. This involvement is not expected to rise to the level of an adverse economic impact for the reasons discussed above. The cost of compliance for small businesses as compared to large businesses will be the same.

Comments on the proposal must be received by 5:00 p.m., June 16, 2004. You may comment via the Internet by accessing the commission's website at www.twcc.state.tx.us and then clicking on "Laws, Rules & Forms" and then clicking on "Proposed Rules." This medium for commenting will help you organize your comments by rule chapter. You may also comment by emailing your comments to RuleComments@ twcc.state.tx.us or by mailing or delivering your comments to Linda Velasquez, Legal Services, Mailstop #4-D, Texas Workers' Compensation Commission, 7551 Metro Center Drive, Suite 100, Austin, Texas 78744-7551.

Commenters are requested to clearly identify by number the specific rule and paragraph commented upon. The commission may not be able to respond to comments that cannot be linked to a particular proposed rule. Along with your comment, it is suggested that you include the reasoning for the comment in order for commission staff to fully evaluate your recommendations.

Based upon various considerations, including comments received and the staffs' or commissioners' review of those comments, or based upon the commissioners' action at the public meeting, the rule as adopted may be revised from the rule as proposed in whole or in part. Persons in support of the rule as proposed, in whole or in part, may wish to comment to that effect. Persons who disagree with the timeframes proposed in these amendments are encouraged to suggest alternate timeframes with reasons for the suggested changes.

A public hearing on this proposal will be held on June 16, 2004, at the Austin central office of the commission (Texas Workers' Compensation Commission, 7551 Metro Center Drive, Suite 100, Austin, Texas). Those persons interested in attending the public hearing should contact the Commission's Office of Executive Communication at (512) 804-4030 to confirm the date, time, and location of the public hearing for this proposal. The public hearing schedule will also be available on the commission's website at www.twcc.state.tx.us .

The rule amendments are proposed pursuant to: the Texas Labor Code §401.011 which contains definitions used in the Texas Workers' Compensation Act; the Texas Labor Code §401.024, which provides the Commission the authority to require use of facsimile or other electronic means to transmit information in the system; the Texas Labor Code §402.042, which authorizes the Executive Director to enter orders as authorized by the Act as well as to prescribe the form and manner and procedure for transmission of information to the Commission; the Texas Labor Code §402.061, which authorizes the Commission to adopt rules necessary to administer the Act; the Texas Labor Code §406.010, which authorizes the Commission to adopt rules regarding claims service; the Texas Labor Code §408.021, which states an employee who sustains a compensable injury is entitled to all health care reasonably required by the nature of the injury as and when needed; the Texas Labor Code §408.022, which address choice of treating doctor; the Texas Labor Code §408.023, which requires the Commission to develop a list of approved doctors and lay out the requirements for being on the list and which grants the Commission the authority to provide for exceptions to the requirement to be on the ADL, as necessary to ensure that employees have access to health care; the Texas Labor Code §408.0231, which provides the Commission with the responsibility for maintenance of the list, with the authority for imposing sanctions, and requires the Commission to adopt rules; the Texas Labor Code §408.025 which requires the Commission to specify by rule what reports a health care provider is required to file; the Texas Labor Code §413.002, which requires the Commission to monitor health care providers and carriers to ensure compliance with Commission rules relating to health care including medical policies and fee guidelines; the Texas Labor Code §413.011, which requires the Commission by rule to establish medical policies relating to necessary treatments for injuries and designed to ensure the quality of medical care and to achieve effective medical cost control; the Texas Labor Code §413.012, which requires the Commission to review and revise medical policies and fee guidelines at least every two years to reflect current medical treatment and fees that are reasonable and necessary; the Texas Labor Code §413.013, which requires the Commission by rule to establish a program for prospective, concurrent, and retrospective review and resolution of a dispute regarding health care treatments and services; a program for the systematic monitoring of the necessity of the treatments administered and fees charged and paid for medical treatments or services including the authorization of prospective, concurrent or retrospective review and a program to detect practices and patterns by insurance carriers in unreasonably denying authorization of payment for medical services, and a program to increase the intensity of review; the Texas Labor Code §413.014, which requires the Commission to specify by rule, except for treatments and services required to treat a medical emergency, which health care treatments and services require express preauthorization and concurrent review by the carrier as well as allowing health care providers to request precertification and allowing the carriers to enter agreements to pay for treatments and services that do not require preauthorization or concurrent review. This mandate also states the carrier is not liable for the cost of the specified treatments and services unless preauthorization is sought by the claimant or health care provider and either obtained or ordered by the Commission; the Texas Labor Code §413.017, which establishes medical services to be presumed reasonable when provided subject to prospective, concurrent review and are authorized by the carrier; the Texas Labor Code §413.031, which establishes the right to access medical dispute resolution; the Texas Labor Code §413.041, which requires financial disclosure of financial interests by health care providers and their employers, which requires the Commission to adopt federal standards prohibiting payment of acceptance of payment in exchange for health care referrals, and which prohibits payment to a provider during a period of noncompliance with disclosure requirements; the Texas Labor Code §413.0511, which creates the position of Medical Advisor and imbues the position with certain responsibilities and authority; the Texas Labor Code §413.0512, which creates the Medical Quality Review Panel (MQRP) and grants it certain responsibilities and authority; certain responsibilities and authority; the Texas Labor Code §413.0513, which lays out confidentiality provisions relating to the MQRP; the Texas Labor Code §414.007, which allows the review of referrals from the Medical Review Division by the Division of Compliance and Practices; and; the Texas Labor Code §415.0035, which establishes administrative violations for repeated administrative violations.

The rule amendments are proposed pursuant to: the Texas Labor Code §§401.011, 401.024, 402.042, 402.061, 406.010, 408.021, 408.022, 408.023, 408.0231, 408.025, 413.002, 413.011, 413.012, 413.013, 413.014, 413.017, 413.031, 413.041, 413.0511, 413.0512, 413.0513, 414.007, 415.0035.

The previously cited sections of the Texas Labor Code are affected by this proposed rule. No other code or statute is affected by this proposal.

§180.20.Commission Approved Doctor List.

(a) This section governs the commission's approved doctor list (ADL). Except in an emergency, as defined in §133.1 of this title (relating to Definitions For Chapter 133) or for the immediate post-injury medical care, as defined in §180.1 of this title (relating to Definitions) injured employees (employees) shall receive health care from a doctor on the ADL:

(1) The ADL established by the statute and commission rules as it exists on August 31, 2003 is null and void as of September 1, 2003. Any doctor on the ADL prior to September 1, 2003 who does not reapply to be on the ADL or whose application is not approved will not be on the ADL as of September 1, 2003.

(2) On or after September 1, 2003, doctors who provide any functions in the Texas workers' compensation system are required to be on the ADL.

(b) Until September 1, 2003, unless deleted from the list by the commission, the ADL includes all doctors licensed in Texas on or after January 1, 1993, and doctors licensed in other jurisdictions who have been added to the list by the commission. Doctors licensed in other jurisdictions may ask to be added to the list by submitting a written request containing information prescribed by the commission. Doctors on the ADL on or after September 1, 2003, whether licensed in Texas or licensed by another jurisdiction, shall have:

(1) successfully completed the training required by §180.23(h) of this title (relating to Commission Required Training for Doctors/Certificate of Registration Levels);

(2) applied for a Certificate of Registration with the commission in the form and manner prescribed by the commission; and

(3) disclosed financial interests as required by Texas Labor Code §413.041 and §180.24 of this title (relating to Financial Disclosure) with the application.

(c) An incomplete application for registration to be admitted to the ADL pursuant to this section shall be rejected and shall not be processed. A complete application shall include:

(1) general contact information including, but not limited to: name, mailing address, voice and facsimile numbers, and an email address;

(2) the training module taken and date completed;

(3) Impairment Rating Skills Examination score, if applicable;

(4) verification of licensure;

(5) disciplinary actions or practice restrictions by an appropriate licensing or certification authority, if any;

(6) an agreement that the doctor will comply with the Statute and Rules, including but not limited to, cooperating with commission monitoring and review efforts such as audits by the commission and paying audit bills when required by Statute or Rule;

(7) if the doctor applying for the ADL is not licensed in this state but wishes to perform utilization review and/or peer reviews for an insurance carrier or its agent, the applicant must certify that the reviews will be performed under the direction of a doctor who is licensed in this state and has an ADL Level 2 Certificate of Registration (as provided in §180.23 of this title). The carrier requesting such a review must ensure that the work was performed under the direction of an appropriate in-state doctor, and, upon request, must identify the in-state doctor and present documentation that the review was performed under the direction of that doctor; and

(8) if the doctor is applying for a Level 1 Certificate of Registration with a Non-Medical Management designation as provided in §180.23(c)(1)(D) of this title, the doctor must indicate in the appropriate place on the application that the doctor's practice does not include ongoing medical management, including pain management, of injured employees.

(d) The commission may utilize members of the Medical Quality Review Panel for evaluating ADL applications and making recommendations to the Medical Advisor to approve, approve with condition(s) or restriction(s), or deny admission to the ADL.

(e) The commission may grant a temporary exception to the requirement to be on the ADL to ensure that employees have access to health care pending commission action on a doctor's application. A doctor with a temporary exception must meet all the requirements that doctors on the ADL must meet. A temporary exception does not constitute "being on the ADL," "approval to be on the ADL," or "denial of an application to be on the ADL."

(f) Doctors shall be denied admission to the ADL or admitted with condition(s) or restriction(s) for:

(1) failing to complete required training;

(2) having relevant restriction(s) on their practice (including, but not limited to, prior deletion from the ADL); or

(3) other activities which warrant application denial or restriction such as grounds that would require or allow the Medical Advisor to recommend deletion of a doctor from the ADL or other sanction of a doctor as specified in §180.26 of this title (relating to Doctor and Insurance Carrier Sanctions) or the Statute and Rules.

(g) The commission shall notify a doctor of the commission's approval , approval with condition(s) or restriction(s), or denial of the doctor's application to the ADL.

(1) Denials or approvals with condition(s) or restriction(s) shall include the reason(s) for the action.

(2) Within 15 [ 14 ] days after receiving the notice, the doctor may file a response [ , ] which addresses the reason(s) [ reasons ] given for the denial or admission with condition(s) or restriction(s).

(A) If a response is not received by the 15th day after the date the doctor received the notice, the action shall be final effective the following day. No [ and no ] further notice shall be sent.

(B) If a response which disagrees with the action is timely received, the commission shall review the response and shall notify the doctor of the commission's final decision. If the final decision is not an unrestricted approval, the commission's final notice shall provide [ explain ] the reason(s) [ reason ] why the doctor's response did not convince the commission to grant the doctor an unrestricted admission to the ADL. The denial or admission with condition(s) or restriction(s) shall be effective the day following the date the doctor receives notice of the final decision unless otherwise specified in the notice.

(3) Notwithstanding other provisions of this subsection, for denials pursuant to §180.20(f)(1) of this title, and for denials pursuant to §180.20(f)(3) of this title wherein the subsection of §180.26 relied upon is §180.26(b), and within five working days (as defined by §102.3(b) of this title) after receiving the notice, the doctor may file a response which addresses the reason(s) given for the denial.

(A) If a response is not received by the fifth working day after the date the doctor received the notice, the action shall be final effective the following day. No further notice shall be sent.

(B) If a response which disagrees with the action is timely received, the commission shall review the response and shall notify the doctor of the commission's final decision. A final decision denying the doctor admission to the ADL shall provide the reason(s) why the doctor's response did not convince the commission to grant the doctor admission to the ADL. The denial shall be effective the day following the date the doctor receives notice of the denial unless otherwise specified in the notice.

(4) [ (3) ] All notices under this subsection shall be delivered by a verifiable means. Date of receipt for notices shall be determined in accordance with §102.5(d) of this title.

(5) [ (4) ] The fact that the commission did not take action to deny admission to a doctor or admit a doctor with condition(s) or restriction(s) to the ADL does not waive the commission's right to review or further review a doctor and take action at a later date.

(h) Chapter 133 of this title (relating to Benefits - Medical Benefits) applies to all medical bills, including those from doctors who were not on the ADL at the time the health care was rendered.

(1) All licensed doctors, whether on the ADL or not, are entitled to reimbursement in accordance with the Statute and Rules for providing reasonable and necessary emergency or immediate post-injury medical care.

(2) A doctor is entitled to reimbursement in accordance with the doctor's level of Certificate of Registration and the Statute and Rules for directly or indirectly providing reasonable and necessary health care (other than emergency or immediate post-injury medical care) or other medical services (such as peer reviews or other evaluations) if:

(A) the doctor was on the ADL at the time the service was provided;

(B) the doctor was granted a temporary exception to the requirement to be on the ADL at the time the service was provided; or

(C) the doctor has been granted an exception on a case-by-case basis as provided in §180.23(b) of this title, and the claim for which the doctor is billing is one for which the doctor has been granted an exception.

(3) A doctor who is entitled to reimbursement based on paragraph (2)(A) and (B) of this subsection may perform medical services and bill for those services only after notification of such entitlement from the commission.

(4) A carrier who receives a bill from a doctor who is not entitled to reimbursement pursuant to paragraph (2) of this subsection shall deny the medical bill and send the required explanation of benefits (EOB) with the appropriate payment exception code.

(5) Notwithstanding this subsection, a doctor's entitlement to direct or indirect reimbursement for health care or medical opinions directly or indirectly provided (other than for emergency or immediate post-injury medical care) may be limited by sanction imposed by the commission.

(i) The commission shall make available through its Internet website the names, licensure and other identification information, and ADL or ADL exception status of:

(1) doctors who are not on the ADL because their applications were denied;

(2) doctors on the ADL (including a description of any privileges, conditions or restrictions placed on the doctor by the commission);

(3) doctors deleted or suspended from the ADL or otherwise sanctioned by the commission (including a description of the sanction);

(4) doctors reinstated to the ADL or whose sanctions were lifted by the commission; and

(5) doctors granted a temporary exception from the requirement to be on the ADL pursuant to subsection (e) of this section or on a case-by-case basis.

(j) Doctors who are on the ADL or who have applied to be on the ADL shall provide the commission with updated information within 30 days of a change in any of the information provided to the commission on the doctor's ADL application.

(k) Level 1 Certificates of Registration are valid for two years from date of issuance, and Level 2 Certificates of Registration are valid for four years from date of issuance unless the Certificate provides otherwise, the date is revised by agreed settlement pursuant to §180.26 of this title (relating to Doctor and Insurance Carrier Sanctions) or Texas Government Code §2001.056 (relating to Informal Disposition of Contested Case), Commission order or decision, or the doctor has been removed from the ADL. Upon expiration of a doctor's Certificate of Registration, the doctor must reapply for the ADL.

§180.21.Commission Designated Doctor List.

(a) In order to serve as a designated doctor, a doctor must be on the Designated Doctor List (DDL).

(b) To be on the DDL prior to September 1, 2003, the doctor shall at a minimum:

(1) be currently active on the Approved Doctor List (ADL) as set forth in Texas Labor Code §408.023 and §180.20 of this title (relating to Commission Approved Doctor List);

(2) have maintained for the past three years and continue to maintain an active practice;

(3) have filed a request to be on the DDL in the form and manner prescribed by the commission and been approved by the commission; and

(4) meet the following training requirements:

(A) have successfully completed commission-approved training in the proper use of the AMA Guides prior to submission of an application;

(B) have successfully completed commission-approved training at least every two years from the date of the last training; and

(C) have passed the commission-approved written examination for impairment rating training within the timeframe specified by the commission.

(c) To be on the DDL on or after September 1, 2003, the doctor shall at a minimum:

(1) be currently active on the ADL with a Level 2 Certificate of Registration with no condition(s) or restriction(s), or have a temporary exception to the requirement to be on the ADL, as set forth in Texas Labor Code §408.023 and §180.20 of this title;

(2) have had an active practice for one year during their career;

(3) be fully authorized to assign impairment ratings and certify maximum medical improvement (MMI) under §180.23(i) of this title (relating to Commission Required Training for Doctors/Certificate of Registration Levels);

(4) have filed a request in the form and manner prescribed by the commission, and have been approved by the commission to be included on the DDL; and

(5) either maintain an active practice or successfully complete commission-approved supplemental training on medical issues relevant to workers' compensation and/or serving as a designated doctor. Supplemental training shall be completed between 18 and 30 months following the doctor's passing the test required to obtain and retain full MMI/impairment authorization.

(d) An incomplete application for registration to be admitted to the DDL pursuant to this section and other Rules shall be rejected and shall not be processed. A complete application shall include:

(1) general contact information including, but not limited to: name, mailing address, voice and facsimile numbers and an email address;

(2) the training certificate indicating the level of training completed;

(3) Impairment Rating Skills Examination score;

(4) verification of licensure;

(5) information on the doctor's training and experience in various types of health care and injury areas; and

(6) disciplinary actions or practice restrictions by an appropriate licensing or certification authority, if any.

(e) The commission may utilize members of the Medical Quality Review Panel (MQRP) for evaluating DDL applications and making recommendations to the Medical Advisor to approve or deny admission to the DDL. The commission may also utilize members of the MQRP regarding deletion, suspension, or other sanction of a designated doctor as provided in this section.

(f) Doctors shall be denied admission to the DDL:

(1) if the doctor does not meet the requirements of subsection (c)(1) of this section;

(2) if the doctor has not completed required training in accordance with §180.23(i) of this title and passed the commission approved test;

(3) for failing to submit a complete application in accordance with this section;

(4) for having a relevant restriction on their practice (including, but not limited to, prior deletion from the ADL or DDL or a prior ADL restriction); or

(5) for other activities which warrant application denial such as grounds that would require the Medical Advisor to recommend deletion of a doctor from the ADL or other sanction of a doctor as specified in §180.26 of this Title (relating to Doctor and Insurance Carrier Sanctions) or the Statute and Rules.

(g) The commission shall notify a doctor of the commission's approval or denial of the doctor's application to the DDL.

(1) Denials shall include the reason(s) for the denial.

(2) Within 15 [ 14 ] days after receiving the notice, the doctor may file a response which addresses the reasons given for the denial.

(A) If a response is not received by the 15th day after the date the doctor received the notice, the denial shall be final effective the following day. No [ and no ] further notice shall be sent.

(B) If a response which disagrees with the denial is timely received, the commission shall review the response and shall notify the doctor of the commission's final decision. If the final decision is a denial, the commission's final notice shall provide [ explain ] the reason why the doctor's response did not convince the commission to admit the doctor to the DDL. The denial shall be effective the day following the date the doctor receives notice of the denial unless otherwise specified in the notice.

(3) Notwithstanding other provisions of this subsection, for denials pursuant to §§180.21(f)(1)-(3) of this title, and for denials pursuant to §180.21(f)(5) wherein the subsection of §180.26 relied upon is §180.26(b), and within five working days (as defined by §102.3(b) of this title) after receiving the notice, the doctor may file a response which addresses the reason(s) given for the denial.

(A) If a response is not received by the fifth working day after the date the doctor received the notice, the action shall be final effective the following day. No further notice shall be sent.

(B) If a response which disagrees with the action is timely received, the commission shall review the response and shall notify the doctor of the commission's final decision. A final decision denying the doctor admission to the DDL shall provide the reason(s) why the doctor's response did not convince the commission to grant the doctor admission to the DDL. The denial shall be effective the day following the date the doctor receives notice of the denial unless otherwise specified in the notice.

(4) [ (3) ] All notices under this subsection shall be delivered by a verifiable means. Date of receipt for notices shall be determined in accordance with §102.5(d) of this title.

(5) [ (4) ] The fact that the commission did not take action to deny or restrict admission to the DDL does not waive the commission's right to review or further review a doctor and take action at a later date.

(h) When necessary because the injured employee is temporarily located or is residing out-of-state, the commission may waive any of the requirements as specified in this rule for an out-of-state doctor to serve as a designated doctor to facilitate a timely resolution of the dispute.

(i) Doctors on the DDL shall provide the commission with updated information within 30 days of a change in any of the information provided to the commission on the doctor's DDL application.

(j) In addition to the grounds for deletion or suspension from the ADL or for issuing other sanctions against a doctor under §180.26 (of this title), the commission shall delete or suspend a doctor from the DDL, or otherwise sanction a designated doctor for noncompliance with requirements of this section or any of the following:

(1) four refusals within a 90-day period, or four consecutive refusals to perform within the required time frames, a commission requested appointment for which the doctor is qualified;

(2) misrepresentation or omission of pertinent facts in medical evaluation and narrative reports;

(3) having a pattern of practice of unnecessary referrals to other health care providers for the assignment of an impairment rating or determination of MMI;

(4) submission of inaccurate or inappropriate reports as a pattern of practice due to insufficient examination and analysis of medical records;

(5) willful failure to timely respond to a request for clarification from the commission regarding an examination or failure to timely respond as a pattern of practice;

(6) assignments of MMI and/or impairment ratings overturned in a contested case hearing, appeals panel decision and/or court decision;

(7) any of the factors listed in subsection (f) of this section that would allow for denial of admission to the DDL;

(8) failure to timely successfully complete training and testing requirements as specified in subsections (b) or (c) of this section;

(9) failure to notify the commission field office of any disqualifying association within 48 hours of receiving notice of being selected as a designated doctor as a pattern of practice or conducting an examination when there is a disqualifying association;

(10) failure to maintain an active practice or failure to maintain the alternate training requirements outlined in subsection (c)(5) of this section;

(11) self-referring for treatment or becoming the employee's treating doctor for the medical condition evaluated by the designated doctor; or

(12) other significant violation of Statute and/or Rules while serving as a designated doctor.

(k) The process for notification and opportunity for appeal of a sanction is governed by §180.27 of this title (relating to Sanctions Process/Appeals) except that suspension, deletion, or other sanction relating to the DDL shall be in effect during the pendency of any appeal.

(l) The commission shall make available through its Internet website the names of:

(1) doctors on the DDL;

(2) doctors deleted or suspended from the list or otherwise sanctioned by the commission (including a description of the sanction); and

(3) doctors reinstated to the list or whose sanctions were lifted by the commission.

(m) When a doctor is added to the DDL or readmitted following a suspension or deletion, the doctor shall be placed at the bottom of the list for rotation purposes under Texas Labor Code §408.0041.

(n) The following definitions apply to this section:

(1) Active practice--a doctor has an active practice if the doctor maintains routine office hours of at least 20 hours per week for the treatment of patients.

(2) Disqualifying Association--any association which may reasonably be perceived as having potential to influence the conduct or decision of the designated doctor.

(A) A disqualifying association between a designated doctor and a party may include:

(i) receipt of income, compensation, or payment of any kind not related to health care provided by the doctor;

(ii) shared investment or ownership interest;

(iii) contracts or agreements that provide incentives, such as referral fees, payments based on volume or value, and waiver of beneficiary coinsurance and deductible amounts;

(iv) contracts or agreements for space or equipment rentals, personnel services, management contracts, referral services, or warranties, or any other services related to the management of the doctor's practice;

(v) personal or family relationships; or

(vi) any other financial arrangement that would require disclosure under §180.24 of this title (relating to Financial Disclosure).

(B) Receipt of normal payments rendered for services provided pursuant to managed care/preferred provider contracts, or any payment in accordance with the Texas Workers' Compensation Act and rules, is not a disqualifying association.

(3) Party--any of the following entities including any of their agents or representatives: the insurance carrier, health care provider (including designated doctor and treating doctor), injured employee, or employer.

(4) Self-Refer--treatment by the designated doctor or referral for treatment to another health care provider with which the designated doctor has a disqualifying association.

§180.27.Sanctions Process/Appeals/Restoration/Reinstatement.

(a) If the commission intends to take action under §180.26 (relating to Doctor and Insurance Carrier Sanctions) or action against a designated doctor under §180.21 (relating to Commission Designated Doctor List), other than in the case where a progressive disciplinary agreement under §180.26(e) was entered into, the commission shall notify the person ("person" also includes a carrier) to be sanctioned by verifiable means of the commission's intent.

(1) Not later than 20 days after receiving the notice, a doctor may request a hearing at the State Office of Administrative Hearings by filing such a request with the Chief Clerk of Proceedings at the commission.

(2) If no request for hearing is filed within the time allowed, the recommendation for sanction will be reviewed by the commissioners at a public meeting and a decision made. If a hearing was held, the commissioners shall review the decision of the administrative law judge (ALJ) after the hearing is held.

(b) If the commission modifies, amends, or changes a recommended finding of fact or conclusion of law, or order of the ALJ, the commission's final order shall state the legal basis and the specific reasons for the change.

(c) If the commissioners vote to impose the sanction, the commission shall notify the person by issuing an order of which describes the effects of the sanction. This order shall be delivered by verifiable means with a copy to the appropriate licensing or certification authority and, if the sanction is against a doctor, copies shall be delivered to those injured employees the commission is aware are being treated by that doctor.

(d) Failure to comply with the sanction may result in further sanctioning by the commission.

(e) A person who was sanctioned can apply to have the sanction lifted (whether through restoration of privileges or recertification) by applying in the form and manner prescribed by the commission.

(1) The request shall be evaluated by the Medical Advisor and /or members of the Medical Quality Review Panel. The requestor shall be liable for the cost of the review, which may include an audit of the records of the requestor.

(A) If, in the Medical Advisor's opinion, the person has all the appropriate unrestricted licenses/certifications, has overcome the conditions that resulted in sanction, and should be reinstated, the Medical Advisor shall recommend that the commissioners reinstate the doctor or restore the privileges removed or restricted by the sanction.

(B) If, in the Medical Advisor's opinion, the person has not met the requirements for reinstatement or restoration of privileges, the commission shall notify the person by verifiable means of the intent to recommend to the commissioners that the sanctions not be lifted. Within 15 [ 14 ] days after receiving the notice, a doctor may file a response that addresses the reasons given that the recommendation was to be made. The Medical Advisor shall review the response and make a final recommendation to the commissioners. A copy of the requestor's response to the commission shall be provided to the commissioners for consideration.

(2) The commissioners shall consider the matter in a public meeting and shall notify the requestor by verifiable means with a copy to the appropriate licensing or certification authority. If the commissioners choose to not lift the sanction, the commissioners may include in their final decision the conditions that the sanctioned person must meet before the commission will reconsider lifting the sanctions including, but not limited to, the amount of time that the person must wait prior to rerequesting lifting the sanction.

(f) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, deletion from the Approved Doctor List by the Executive Director pursuant to §180.26(b) of this title shall be governed by this subsection.

(1) Prior to deletion, the Executive Director or designee shall notify a doctor of the intention to delete the doctor and the grounds for that action.

(2) Within five working [ 14 ] days (as defined by §102.3(b) of this title) after receiving the notice of intent, a doctor may file a response to the reasons given as grounds for the deletion with the Executive Director or designee.

(A) If a response is not received by the fifth working [ 15th ] day after the date the doctor received the notice of intent, the doctor shall be [ is ] deleted effective the following day. No [ and no ] subsequent notice shall [ will ] be sent.

(B) If the response is agreement, the doctor shall [ will ] be deleted effective on the earlier of the date the doctor agrees to the deletion or the day following the fifth working [ 15th ] day after the date the doctor received the notice of intent . No [ and no ] subsequent notice shall [ will ] be sent.

(C) If a response which disagrees with the grounds for deletion is timely received and after reviewing the response, the Executive Director or designee determines:

(i) that the grounds do not exist for deletion under §180.26(b) of this title , the doctor shall be notified that he was not deleted [ under §180.26(b) ]; or

(ii) that the grounds for deletion do exist under §180.26(b) of this title , the doctor shall be deleted effective the day following the date the doctor receives notice of the deletion unless otherwise specified in the notice. [ notified of the deletion and the notice shall identify the effective date of the deletion. ]

(3) All notices under this subsection shall be delivered by a verifiable means. Date of receipt for notices shall be determined in accordance with §102.5(d) of this title.

This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be within the agency's legal authority to adopt.

Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on April 19, 2004.

TRD-200402579

Susan Cory

General Counsel

Texas Workers' Compensation Commission

Earliest possible date of adoption: May 30, 2004

For further information, please call: (512) 804-4287