RE: Goings on At the Salem State Capitol

[Guest guest]

Go Vern! Always on target.

Christian Mathisen, DC

3654 S Pacific Hwy

Medford, OR

cmathdc@...

"Goings on At the Salem State Capitol"

Dear Colleagues,

Just an update as per the special session and goings on relative to us at the capitol. As per the capitol building and substantive bills effecting us? Nothing is the answer, legislators are very limited on the number and type of bills they can introduce for this month long special session.

Alternatively much activity has been happening at the department level. Yesterday I was asked to and participated in an Administrative Rule Advisory Committee meeting/discussion relative to several Workers' Comp Division rules not the least of which were the rules relative to expanding the very restricted MCO W/C provider panels and increasing the $ value on the conversion factors for our RUVs relative to our EM Codes which had be reduced a couple years ago. Interestingly the "Provider Task Force" that was put together to look at reducing the conversion factors failed to appoint a chiropractic physician on the committee and I have asked to be placed on future provider task forces relative to this issue.

About a week and a half ago I pulled a meeting together with the Workers' Comp Division Director and his staff relative to expanding the MCO panels. I asked and bless his heart my friend and your colleague attending the meeting with me Dr. Freeman performed a similar study to that which the CAO performed relative to barriers injured workers were subjected to when wishing to see a chiropractor. The study/survey was commissioned by our good colleagues in ODOC spearheaded by my good friend Dr. Schmidt, to say the least Dr. Freeman's survey results were quite compelling and as always his comments during this high level meeting were both very timely and strategic during this meeting. Subsequent to that meeting the Director agreed to open the Admin Rules that address the minimum number of providers in each "Geographic Service Area (GSA) across the state.

The Monday morning meeting which again took me out of clinic was rather long and the issue of expanding the MCO panels didn't come up until the very end of the meeting, a four and a half hour meeting that ran 35 mins overtime. It was unfortunate that the pro-worker representatives on the committee had left due to other commitments and I was left with a very skewed audience of remaining committee members...namely the MCO representatives, W/C insurance carriers, IME vendors, defense attorneys, and Workers' Comp Division staff. One shining spot in the room however was my now friend big Bob Oleson lobbyist for ODOC sitting behind me if it weren't for Bob the room would have been very, very cold indeed. Nonetheless I delivered by presentation. I spoke of how the CAO and ODOC surveys revealed considerable barriers to injured workers wishing to see one of our colleagues and how this was a disservice to injured workers, a cost driving, in violation of current statute, and fundamentally wrong. That the recent Workers' Comp Division's supposed study/survey noting that they were simply not getting any complaints from injured workers who were saying that they could not see the provider or chiropractor of there choice was flawed. I said that there is some very common sense reasons why we believe you are not getting any complaints and I spelled them out. 1. Injured workers have no idea where or to whom they should complain, they have no idea what DCBS is nor it's contact information they have no clue, nor what BOLI is nor it's contact information, and they certainly don't know of the Investigations & Sanctions Unit, Compliance Section and it's phone number. 2. This is clearly exacerbated by injured workers generally not knowing or clearly understanding their rights, including their treatment rights. As a consequence injured workers are being told they must go to this Occupational Clinic, or this Urgent Care Clinic, or the "Company Doctor" (steering) and even being told by their employer when asked that they can't see a chiropractor "they are not authorized to see a DC this is a work comp case...don't ya know." I told the committee members present that lastly injured workers are not complaining and not filing claims for fear of termination and fear that filing a workers' comp claim will adversely affect their future employment which is why Professor Freeman's study indicates that there are actually more workers who had been injured on the job refusing to file claims than those actually filing a claim. This is why your not getting your complaints.

I then spoke to the issue of quality of care delivered to injured workers and that the Workers' Comp Director Shilts stated that there was no evidence that the closed panel MCO system in Oregon either improved quality or reduced costs but that this is what the MCO keep saying as a rational for the very restricted MCO panels. I then turned and look at each MCO rep around the room as I said that the chiropractic profession would respectfully ask that you at least consider the possibility that opening the MCO panels would improve quality of care rather than the reverse. That by making these panels open or as large as possible that competition among providers would then occur and would promote quality care. I explained that if multiple providers or specific to us chiropractic physicians are all competing for a limited number of injured workers in any given GSA there would be a incentive for my colleagues to indeed give each one of those injured workers their professional best. Why? In hopes that the injured worker will refer not only other injured workers but their family members, friends, and acquaintances. Alternatively with the closed panels you have a "captured audience" injured workers must go to this or that provider and if that provider has as I say a captured audience 10 more injured workers waiting in the reception room there is less incentive to give that patient in the room their best because there are many more waiting. I said we need look no further than some of the European socialized medical systems to see this phenomenon, people/injured workers are simply reduced to just being a number. I ended by saying what my father had told me back in 1981 when I joined the practice he said: "Son treat every patient like family, like your best friend, how you would want to be treated if you were hurting and your patients will always refer and you will always be busy and successful." Well when I stopped the negative comments started in.....all of which were from those defending the MCOs and carriers...for example...

A fellow (can't recall his name) to my left a few places who stated earlier in the meeting that he was a defense attorney who worked for SAIF Corp from 1990-1998 was now the attorney representing Oregon Health System MCO piped up and said: "Well I'm not convinced that opening the MCO panels is really in the best interest or serves the MCOs or the insurance carriers well." I immediately (oh by the way did I mention the guy was a complete jerk!) said "I'd like to respond to that" and immediately said "The staff present can of course correct me if I'm wrong but as I understand it the Workers' Compensation Division is interested in providing what is in the best interest of injured workers rather than what might serve the MCOs and insurance carriers well." Of course all the W/C staff present were nodding their collective heads including the facilitator while the "jerk" red-faced look down at his paper (sometimes I really do crack me-self up...it was great!).

Well this post is long enough...

to the continued good fight,

Vern Saboe

[Guest guest]

VS, Re: quote below………..Can the worker

really be injured if they are ‘refusing’ to file a claim ? s.

fuchs dc

‘I told the committee members present that lastly

injured workers are not complaining and not filing claims for fear of

termination and fear that filing a workers' comp claim will adversely affect

their future employment which is why Professor Freeman's study indicates

that there are actually more workers who had been injured on the

job refusing to file claims than those actually filing a claim.

This is why your not getting your complaints. ‘

From:

[mailto: ] On Behalf Of Vern Saboe

Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008

9:57 AM

Oregondcs

Subject:

" Goings on At the Salem

State Capitol "

Dear Colleagues,

Just an update as per the special session and goings on

relative to us at the capitol. As per the capitol building and

substantive bills effecting us? Nothing is the answer, legislators are very

limited on the number and type of bills they can introduce for this month long

special session.

Alternatively much activity has been happening at the

department level. Yesterday I was asked to and participated in an

Administrative Rule Advisory Committee meeting/discussion relative to

several Workers' Comp Division rules not the least of which were the rules

relative to expanding the very restricted MCO W/C provider panels and

increasing the $ value on the conversion factors for our RUVs relative to our

EM Codes which had be reduced a couple years ago. Interestingly the

" Provider Task Force " that was put together to look at reducing the

conversion factors failed to appoint a chiropractic physician on the committee

and I have asked to be placed on future provider task forces relative to this

issue.

About a week and a half ago I pulled a meeting together with

the Workers' Comp Division Director and his staff relative to expanding the MCO

panels. I asked and bless his heart my friend and your colleague

attending the meeting with me Dr. Freeman performed a similar study to that

which the CAO performed relative to barriers injured workers were subjected to

when wishing to see a chiropractor. The study/survey was commissioned by

our good colleagues in ODOC spearheaded by my good friend Dr. Schmidt, to

say the least Dr. Freeman's survey results were quite compelling and as always

his comments during this high level meeting were both very timely and strategic

during this meeting. Subsequent to that meeting the Director agreed to

open the Admin Rules that address the minimum number of providers in each

" Geographic Service Area (GSA) across the state.

The Monday morning meeting which again took me out of clinic

was rather long and the issue of expanding the MCO panels didn't come up until

the very end of the meeting, a four and a half hour meeting that ran 35

mins overtime. It was unfortunate that the pro-worker representatives on

the committee had left due to other commitments and I was left with a very

skewed audience of remaining committee members...namely the MCO

representatives, W/C insurance carriers, IME vendors, defense attorneys, and

Workers' Comp Division staff. One shining spot in the room however was my

now friend big Bob Oleson lobbyist for ODOC sitting behind me if it weren't for

Bob the room would have been very, very cold indeed. Nonetheless I

delivered by presentation. I spoke of how the CAO and ODOC surveys

revealed considerable barriers to injured workers wishing to see one of our colleagues

and how this was a disservice to injured workers, a cost driving, in violation

of current statute, and fundamentally wrong. That the recent Workers'

Comp Division's supposed study/survey noting that they were simply not getting

any complaints from injured workers who were saying that they could not see the

provider or chiropractor of there choice was flawed. I said that there is

some very common sense reasons why we believe you are not getting any

complaints and I spelled them out. 1. Injured workers have no idea

where or to whom they should complain, they have no idea what DCBS is nor it's

contact information they have no clue, nor what BOLI is nor it's contact

information, and they certainly don't know of the Investigations &

Sanctions Unit, Compliance Section and it's phone number. 2. This

is clearly exacerbated by injured workers generally not knowing or clearly

understanding their rights, including their treatment rights. As a

consequence injured workers are being told they must go to this Occupational

Clinic, or this Urgent Care Clinic, or the " Company Doctor "

(steering) and even being told by their employer when asked that they can't see

a chiropractor " they are not authorized to see a DC this is a

work comp case...don't ya know. " I told the committee members

present that lastly injured workers are not complaining and not filing claims

for fear of termination and fear that filing a workers' comp claim will

adversely affect their future employment which is why Professor Freeman's study

indicates that there are actually more workers who had been injured on the

job refusing to file claims than those actually filing a claim.

This is why your not getting your complaints.

I then spoke to the issue of quality of care delivered

to injured workers and that the Workers' Comp Director Shilts stated that

there was no evidence that the closed panel MCO system in Oregon either improved quality or reduced

costs but that this is what the MCO keep saying as a rational for the very

restricted MCO panels. I then turned and look at each MCO rep around the

room as I said that the chiropractic profession would respectfully ask that you

at least consider the possibility that opening the MCO panels would improve

quality of care rather than the reverse. That by making these panels open

or as large as possible that competition among providers would then occur

and would promote quality care. I explained that if multiple providers or

specific to us chiropractic physicians are all competing for a limited number

of injured workers in any given GSA there would be a incentive for my

colleagues to indeed give each one of those injured workers their professional

best. Why? In hopes that the injured worker will refer not only

other injured workers but their family members, friends, and

acquaintances. Alternatively with the closed panels you have a

" captured audience " injured workers must go to this or that provider

and if that provider has as I say a captured audience 10 more injured workers waiting

in the reception room there is less incentive to give that patient in the room

their best because there are many more waiting. I said we need look no

further than some of the European socialized medical systems to see this

phenomenon, people/injured workers are simply reduced to just being a

number. I ended by saying what my father had told me back in 1981 when I

joined the practice he said: " Son treat every patient like family,

like your best friend, how you would want to be treated if you were

hurting and your patients will always refer and you will always

be busy and successful. " Well when I stopped the negative comments

started in.....all of which were from those defending the MCOs and

carriers...for example...

A fellow (can't recall his name) to my left a few

places who stated earlier in the meeting that he was a defense attorney who

worked for SAIF Corp from 1990-1998 was now the attorney representing Oregon

Health System MCO piped up and said: " Well I'm not convinced that

opening the MCO panels is really in the best interest or serves the MCOs or the

insurance carriers well. " I immediately (oh by the way did I mention

the guy was a complete jerk!) said " I'd like to respond to

that " and immediately said " The staff present can of

course correct me if I'm wrong but as I understand it the Workers' Compensation

Division is interested in providing what is in the best interest of injured

workers rather than what might serve the MCOs and insurance carriers

well. " Of course all the W/C staff present were nodding their

collective heads including the facilitator while the " jerk "

red-faced look down at his paper (sometimes I really do crack me-self

up...it was great!).

Well this post is long enough...

to the continued good fight,

Vern Saboe

[Guest guest]

Wow Vern! What a great story. Thanks for all you do.

Jay

"Goings on At the Salem State Capitol"

Dear Colleagues,

Just an update as per the special session and goings on relative to us at the capitol. As per the capitol building and substantive bills effecting us? Nothing is the answer, legislators are very limited on the number and type of bills they can introduce for this month long special session.

Alternatively much activity has been happening at the department level. Yesterday I was asked to and participated in an Administrative Rule Advisory Committee meeting/discussion relative to several Workers' Comp Division rules not the least of which were the rules relative to expanding the very restricted MCO W/C provider panels and increasing the $ value on the conversion factors for our RUVs relative to our EM Codes which had be reduced a couple years ago. Interestingly the "Provider Task Force" that was put together to look at reducing the conversion factors failed to appoint a chiropractic physician on the committee and I have asked to be placed on future provider task forces relative to this issue.

About a week and a half ago I pulled a meeting together with the Workers' Comp Division Director and his staff relative to expanding the MCO panels. I asked and bless his heart my friend and your colleague attending the meeting with me Dr. Freeman performed a similar study to that which the CAO performed relative to barriers injured workers were subjected to when wishing to see a chiropractor. The study/survey was commissioned by our good colleagues in ODOC spearheaded by my good friend Dr. Schmidt, to say the least Dr. Freeman's survey results were quite compelling and as always his comments during this high level meeting were both very timely and strategic during this meeting. Subsequent to that meeting the Director agreed to open the Admin Rules that address the minimum number of providers in each "Geographic Service Area (GSA) across the state.

The Monday morning meeting which again took me out of clinic was rather long and the issue of expanding the MCO panels didn't come up until the very end of the meeting, a four and a half hour meeting that ran 35 mins overtime. It was unfortunate that the pro-worker representatives on the committee had left due to other commitments and I was left with a very skewed audience of remaining committee members...namely the MCO representatives, W/C insurance carriers, IME vendors, defense attorneys, and Workers' Comp Division staff. One shining spot in the room however was my now friend big Bob Oleson lobbyist for ODOC sitting behind me if it weren't for Bob the room would have been very, very cold indeed. Nonetheless I delivered by presentation. I spoke of how the CAO and ODOC surveys revealed considerable barriers to injured workers wishing to see one of our colleagues and how this was a disservice

to injured workers, a cost driving, in violation of current statute, and fundamentally wrong. That the recent Workers' Comp Division's supposed study/survey noting that they were simply not getting any complaints from injured workers who were saying that they could not see the provider or chiropractor of there choice was flawed. I said that there is some very common sense reasons why we believe you are not getting any complaints and I spelled them out. 1. Injured workers have no idea where or to whom they should complain, they have no idea what DCBS is nor it's contact information they have no clue, nor what BOLI is nor it's contact information, and they certainly don't know of the Investigations & Sanctions Unit, Compliance Section and it's phone number. 2. This is clearly exacerbated by injured workers generally not knowing or clearly understanding their rights, including their treatment rights. As a

consequence injured workers are being told they must go to this Occupational Clinic, or this Urgent Care Clinic, or the "Company Doctor" (steering) and even being told by their employer when asked that they can't see a chiropractor "they are not authorized to see a DC this is a work comp case...don't ya know." I told the committee members present that lastly injured workers are not complaining and not filing claims for fear of termination and fear that filing a workers' comp claim will adversely affect their future employment which is why Professor Freeman's study indicates that there are actually more workers who had been injured on the job refusing to file claims than those actually filing a claim. This is why your not getting your complaints.

I then spoke to the issue of quality of care delivered to injured workers and that the Workers' Comp Director Shilts stated that there was no evidence that the closed panel MCO system in Oregon either improved quality or reduced costs but that this is what the MCO keep saying as a rational for the very restricted MCO panels. I then turned and look at each MCO rep around the room as I said that the chiropractic profession would respectfully ask that you at least consider the possibility that opening the MCO panels would improve quality of care rather than the reverse. That by making these panels open or as large as possible that competition among providers would then occur and would promote quality care. I explained that if multiple providers or specific to us chiropractic physicians are all competing for a limited number of injured workers in any given GSA there would be a

incentive for my colleagues to indeed give each one of those injured workers their professional best. Why? In hopes that the injured worker will refer not only other injured workers but their family members, friends, and acquaintances. Alternatively with the closed panels you have a "captured audience" injured workers must go to this or that provider and if that provider has as I say a captured audience 10 more injured workers waiting in the reception room there is less incentive to give that patient in the room their best because there are many more waiting. I said we need look no further than some of the European socialized medical systems to see this phenomenon, people/injured workers are simply reduced to just being a number. I ended by saying what my father had told me back in 1981 when I joined the practice he said: "Son treat every patient like family, like your best friend, how you would want to be

treated if you were hurting and your patients will always refer and you will always be busy and successful." Well when I stopped the negative comments started in.....all of which were from those defending the MCOs and carriers...for example...

A fellow (can't recall his name) to my left a few places who stated earlier in the meeting that he was a defense attorney who worked for SAIF Corp from 1990-1998 was now the attorney representing Oregon Health System MCO piped up and said: "Well I'm not convinced that opening the MCO panels is really in the best interest or serves the MCOs or the insurance carriers well." I immediately (oh by the way did I mention the guy was a complete jerk!) said "I'd like to respond to that" and immediately said "The staff present can of course correct me if I'm wrong but as I understand it the Workers' Compensation Division is interested in providing what is in the best interest of injured workers rather than what might serve the MCOs and insurance carriers well." Of course all the W/C staff present were nodding their collective heads including the facilitator while the "jerk" red-faced look

down at his paper (sometimes I really do crack me-self up...it was great!).

Well this post is long enough...

to the continued good fight,

Vern Saboe

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

[Guest guest]

.....keeep on kkeeeeppppiiiinnnnggg on, good buddy! You're are doing GREAT!!

Sunny

Sunny Kierstyn, RN DC Fibromyalgia Care Center of Oregon 2677 Willakenzie Road, 7C

Eugene, Oregon, 97401

541- 344- 0509; Fx; 541- 344- 0955

Oregondcs From: vsaboe@...Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:56:44 -0800Subject: "Goings on At the Salem State Capitol"

Dear Colleagues,

Just an update as per the special session and goings on relative to us at the capitol. As per the capitol building and substantive bills effecting us? Nothing is the answer, legislators are very limited on the number and type of bills they can introduce for this month long special session.

Alternatively much activity has been happening at the department level. Yesterday I was asked to and participated in an Administrative Rule Advisory Committee meeting/discussion relative to several Workers' Comp Division rules not the least of which were the rules relative to expanding the very restricted MCO W/C provider panels and increasing the $ value on the conversion factors for our RUVs relative to our EM Codes which had be reduced a couple years ago. Interestingly the "Provider Task Force" that was put together to look at reducing the conversion factors failed to appoint a chiropractic physician on the committee and I have asked to be placed on future provider task forces relative to this issue.

About a week and a half ago I pulled a meeting together with the Workers' Comp Division Director and his staff relative to expanding the MCO panels. I asked and bless his heart my friend and your colleague attending the meeting with me Dr. Freeman performed a similar study to that which the CAO performed relative to barriers injured workers were subjected to when wishing to see a chiropractor. The study/survey was commissioned by our good colleagues in ODOC spearheaded by my good friend Dr. Schmidt, to say the least Dr. Freeman's survey results were quite compelling and as always his comments during this high level meeting were both very timely and strategic during this meeting. Subsequent to that meeting the Director agreed to open the Admin Rules that address the minimum number of providers in each "Geographic Service Area (GSA) across the state.

The Monday morning meeting which again took me out of clinic was rather long and the issue of expanding the MCO panels didn't come up until the very end of the meeting, a four and a half hour meeting that ran 35 mins overtime. It was unfortunate that the pro-worker representatives on the committee had left due to other commitments and I was left with a very skewed audience of remaining committee members...namely the MCO representatives, W/C insurance carriers, IME vendors, defense attorneys, and Workers' Comp Division staff. One shining spot in the room however was my now friend big Bob Oleson lobbyist for ODOC sitting behind me if it weren't for Bob the room would have been very, very cold indeed. Nonetheless I delivered by presentation. I spoke of how the CAO and ODOC surveys revealed considerable barriers to injured workers wishing to see one of our colleagues and how this was a disservice to injured workers, a cost driving, in violation of current statute, and fundamentally wrong. That the recent Workers' Comp Division's supposed study/survey noting that they were simply not getting any complaints from injured workers who were saying that they could not see the provider or chiropractor of there choice was flawed. I said that there is some very common sense reasons why we believe you are not getting any complaints and I spelled them out. 1. Injured workers have no idea where or to whom they should complain, they have no idea what DCBS is nor it's contact information they have no clue, nor what BOLI is nor it's contact information, and they certainly don't know of the Investigations & Sanctions Unit, Compliance Section and it's phone number. 2. This is clearly exacerbated by injured workers generally not knowing or clearly understanding their rights, including their treatment rights. As a consequence injured workers are being told they must go to this Occupational Clinic, or this Urgent Care Clinic, or the "Company Doctor" (steering) and even being told by their employer when asked that they can't see a chiropractor "they are not authorized to see a DC this is a work comp case...don't ya know." I told the committee members present that lastly injured workers are not complaining and not filing claims for fear of termination and fear that filing a workers' comp claim will adversely affect their future employment which is why Professor Freeman's study indicates that there are actually more workers who had been injured on the job refusing to file claims than those actually filing a claim. This is why your not getting your complaints.

I then spoke to the issue of quality of care delivered to injured workers and that the Workers' Comp Director Shilts stated that there was no evidence that the closed panel MCO system in Oregon either improved quality or reduced costs but that this is what the MCO keep saying as a rational for the very restricted MCO panels. I then turned and look at each MCO rep around the room as I said that the chiropractic profession would respectfully ask that you at least consider the possibility that opening the MCO panels would improve quality of care rather than the reverse. That by making these panels open or as large as possible that competition among providers would then occur and would promote quality care. I explained that if multiple providers or specific to us chiropractic physicians are all competing for a limited number of injured workers in any given GSA there would be a incentive for my colleagues to indeed give each one of those injured workers their professional best. Why? In hopes that the injured worker will refer not only other injured workers but their family members, friends, and acquaintances. Alternatively with the closed panels you have a "captured audience" injured workers must go to this or that provider and if that provider has as I say a captured audience 10 more injured workers waiting in the reception room there is less incentive to give that patient in the room their best because there are many more waiting. I said we need look no further than some of the European socialized medical systems to see this phenomenon, people/injured workers are simply reduced to just being a number. I ended by saying what my father had told me back in 1981 when I joined the practice he said: "Son treat every patient like family, like your best friend, how you would want to be treated if you were hurting and your patients will always refer and you will always be busy and successful." Well when I stopped the negative comments started in.....all of which were from those defending the MCOs and carriers...for example...

A fellow (can't recall his name) to my left a few places who stated earlier in the meeting that he was a defense attorney who worked for SAIF Corp from 1990-1998 was now the attorney representing Oregon Health System MCO piped up and said: "Well I'm not convinced that opening the MCO panels is really in the best interest or serves the MCOs or the insurance carriers well." I immediately (oh by the way did I mention the guy was a complete jerk!) said "I'd like to respond to that" and immediately said "The staff present can of course correct me if I'm wrong but as I understand it the Workers' Compensation Division is interested in providing what is in the best interest of injured workers rather than what might serve the MCOs and insurance carriers well." Of course all the W/C staff present were nodding their collective heads including the facilitator while the "jerk" red-faced look down at his paper (sometimes I really do crack me-self up...it was great!).

Well this post is long enough...

to the continued good fight,

Vern Saboe

Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live. Get it now!

[Guest guest]

Niiiiiiice

I cant believe the jerk even said something like that. Does he realize the gravity of his statements?

Good job vern!

ph Medlin D.C.Spine Tree Chiropracticwww.spinetreepdx.com

"Goings on At the Salem State Capitol"

Dear Colleagues,

Just an update as per the special session and goings on relative to us at the capitol. As per the capitol building and substantive bills effecting us? Nothing is the answer, legislators are very limited on the number and type of bills they can introduce for this month long special session.

Alternatively much activity has been happening at the department level. Yesterday I was asked to and participated in an Administrative Rule Advisory Committee meeting/discussion relative to several Workers' Comp Division rules not the least of which were the rules relative to expanding the very restricted MCO W/C provider panels and increasing the $ value on the conversion factors for our RUVs relative to our EM Codes which had be reduced a couple years ago. Interestingly the "Provider Task Force" that was put together to look at reducing the conversion factors failed to appoint a chiropractic physician on the committee and I have asked to be placed on future provider task forces relative to this issue.

About a week and a half ago I pulled a meeting together with the Workers' Comp Division Director and his staff relative to expanding the MCO panels. I asked and bless his heart my friend and your colleague attending the meeting with me Dr. Freeman performed a similar study to that which the CAO performed relative to barriers injured workers were subjected to when wishing to see a chiropractor. The study/survey was commissioned by our good colleagues in ODOC spearheaded by my good friend Dr. Schmidt, to say the least Dr. Freeman's survey results were quite compelling and as always his comments during this high level meeting were both very timely and strategic during this meeting. Subsequent to that meeting the Director agreed to open the Admin Rules that address the minimum number of providers in each "Geographic Service Area (GSA) across the state.

The Monday morning meeting which again took me out of clinic was rather long and the issue of expanding the MCO panels didn't come up until the very end of the meeting, a four and a half hour meeting that ran 35 mins overtime. It was unfortunate that the pro-worker representatives on the committee had left due to other commitments and I was left with a very skewed audience of remaining committee members...namely the MCO representatives, W/C insurance carriers, IME vendors, defense attorneys, and Workers' Comp Division staff. One shining spot in the room however was my now friend big Bob Oleson lobbyist for ODOC sitting behind me if it weren't for Bob the room would have been very, very cold indeed. Nonetheless I delivered by presentation. I spoke of how the CAO and ODOC surveys revealed considerable barriers to injured workers wishing to see one of our colleagues and how this was a disservice to injured workers, a cost driving, in violation of current statute, and fundamentally wrong. That the recent Workers' Comp Division's supposed study/survey noting that they were simply not getting any complaints from injured workers who were saying that they could not see the provider or chiropractor of there choice was flawed. I said that there is some very common sense reasons why we believe you are not getting any complaints and I spelled them out. 1. Injured workers have no idea where or to whom they should complain, they have no idea what DCBS is nor it's contact information they have no clue, nor what BOLI is nor it's contact information, and they certainly don't know of the Investigations & Sanctions Unit, Compliance Section and it's phone number. 2. This is clearly exacerbated by injured workers generally not knowing or clearly understanding their rights, including their treatment rights. As a consequence injured workers are being told they must go to this Occupational Clinic, or this Urgent Care Clinic, or the "Company Doctor" (steering) and even being told by their employer when asked that they can't see a chiropractor "they are not authorized to see a DC this is a work comp case...don't ya know." I told the committee members present that lastly injured workers are not complaining and not filing claims for fear of termination and fear that filing a workers' comp claim will adversely affect their future employment which is why Professor Freeman's study indicates that there are actually more workers who had been injured on the job refusing to file claims than those actually filing a claim. This is why your not getting your complaints.

I then spoke to the issue of quality of care delivered to injured workers and that the Workers' Comp Director Shilts stated that there was no evidence that the closed panel MCO system in Oregon either improved quality or reduced costs but that this is what the MCO keep saying as a rational for the very restricted MCO panels. I then turned and look at each MCO rep around the room as I said that the chiropractic profession would respectfully ask that you at least consider the possibility that opening the MCO panels would improve quality of care rather than the reverse. That by making these panels open or as large as possible that competition among providers would then occur and would promote quality care. I explained that if multiple providers or specific to us chiropractic physicians are all competing for a limited number of injured workers in any given GSA there would be a incentive for my colleagues to indeed give each one of those injured workers their professional best. Why? In hopes that the injured worker will refer not only other injured workers but their family members, friends, and acquaintances. Alternatively with the closed panels you have a "captured audience" injured workers must go to this or that provider and if that provider has as I say a captured audience 10 more injured workers waiting in the reception room there is less incentive to give that patient in the room their best because there are many more waiting. I said we need look no further than some of the European socialized medical systems to see this phenomenon, people/injured workers are simply reduced to just being a number. I ended by saying what my father had told me back in 1981 when I joined the practice he said: "Son treat every patient like family, like your best friend, how you would want to be treated if you were hurting and your patients will always refer and you will always be busy and successful." Well when I stopped the negative comments started in.....all of which were from those defending the MCOs and carriers...for example...

A fellow (can't recall his name) to my left a few places who stated earlier in the meeting that he was a defense attorney who worked for SAIF Corp from 1990-1998 was now the attorney representing Oregon Health System MCO piped up and said: "Well I'm not convinced that opening the MCO panels is really in the best interest or serves the MCOs or the insurance carriers well." I immediately (oh by the way did I mention the guy was a complete jerk!) said "I'd like to respond to that" and immediately said "The staff present can of course correct me if I'm wrong but as I understand it the Workers' Compensation Division is interested in providing what is in the best interest of injured workers rather than what might serve the MCOs and insurance carriers well." Of course all the W/C staff present were nodding their collective heads including the facilitator while the "jerk" red-faced look down at his paper (sometimes I really do crack me-self up...it was great!).

Well this post is long enough...

to the continued good fight,

Vern Saboe

[Guest guest]

Hell yes!!! I have had numerous patients

opt to utilize other methods of payment rather than “challenge” their

employer. Fear of reprisal, sense of “this type of problem goes with the job”,

and other factors come into play. In the case of occupational microtrauma,

repetitive over-use type injuries causation is often challenged.

Seitz, DC

From:

[mailto: ] On Behalf Of Sharron Fuchs

Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008

11:31 AM

Oregondcs

Subject: RE:

" Goings on At the Salem

State Capitol "

VS, Re:

quote below………..Can the worker really be injured if they are ‘refusing’ to file

a claim ? s. fuchs dc

‘I told the

committee members present that lastly injured workers are not complaining and

not filing claims for fear of termination and fear that filing a workers' comp

claim will adversely affect their future employment which is why Professor

Freeman's study indicates that there are actually more workers who

had been injured on the job refusing to file claims than those actually

filing a claim. This is why your not getting your

complaints. ‘

From: [mailto: ]

On Behalf Of Vern Saboe

Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008

9:57 AM

Oregondcs

Subject:

" Goings on At the Salem

State

Capitol "

Dear

Colleagues,

Just an

update as per the special session and goings on relative to us at the

capitol. As per the capitol building and substantive bills effecting

us? Nothing is the answer, legislators are very limited on the number and

type of bills they can introduce for this month long special session.

Alternatively

much activity has been happening at the department level. Yesterday I was

asked to and participated in an Administrative Rule Advisory Committee

meeting/discussion relative to several Workers' Comp Division rules not

the least of which were the rules relative to expanding the very restricted MCO

W/C provider panels and increasing the $ value on the conversion factors for

our RUVs relative to our EM Codes which had be reduced a couple years

ago. Interestingly the " Provider Task Force " that was put

together to look at reducing the conversion factors failed to appoint a chiropractic

physician on the committee and I have asked to be placed on future provider

task forces relative to this issue.

About a week

and a half ago I pulled a meeting together with the Workers' Comp Division

Director and his staff relative to expanding the MCO panels. I asked and

bless his heart my friend and your colleague attending the meeting with me Dr.

Freeman performed a similar study to that which the CAO performed relative to

barriers injured workers were subjected to when wishing to see a chiropractor.

The study/survey was commissioned by our good colleagues in ODOC spearheaded by

my good friend Dr. Schmidt, to say the least Dr. Freeman's survey results

were quite compelling and as always his comments during this high level meeting

were both very timely and strategic during this meeting. Subsequent to

that meeting the Director agreed to open the Admin Rules that address the

minimum number of providers in each " Geographic Service Area (GSA) across

the state.

The Monday

morning meeting which again took me out of clinic was rather long and the issue

of expanding the MCO panels didn't come up until the very end of the meeting, a

four and a half hour meeting that ran 35 mins overtime. It was

unfortunate that the pro-worker representatives on the committee had left due

to other commitments and I was left with a very skewed audience of remaining

committee members...namely the MCO representatives, W/C insurance carriers, IME

vendors, defense attorneys, and Workers' Comp Division staff. One shining

spot in the room however was my now friend big Bob Oleson lobbyist for ODOC

sitting behind me if it weren't for Bob the room would have been very, very

cold indeed. Nonetheless I delivered by presentation. I spoke

of how the CAO and ODOC surveys revealed considerable barriers to injured

workers wishing to see one of our colleagues and how this was a disservice to

injured workers, a cost driving, in violation of current statute, and

fundamentally wrong. That the recent Workers' Comp Division's supposed

study/survey noting that they were simply not getting any complaints from

injured workers who were saying that they could not see the provider or

chiropractor of there choice was flawed. I said that there is some very

common sense reasons why we believe you are not getting any complaints and I

spelled them out. 1. Injured workers have no idea where or to whom

they should complain, they have no idea what DCBS is nor it's contact

information they have no clue, nor what BOLI is nor it's contact information,

and they certainly don't know of the Investigations & Sanctions Unit,

Compliance Section and it's phone number. 2. This is clearly

exacerbated by injured workers generally not knowing or clearly understanding

their rights, including their treatment rights. As a consequence injured

workers are being told they must go to this Occupational Clinic, or this Urgent

Care Clinic, or the " Company Doctor " (steering) and even being told

by their employer when asked that they can't see a chiropractor

" they are not authorized to see a DC this is a work comp

case...don't ya know. " I told the committee members present that

lastly injured workers are not complaining and not filing claims for fear of

termination and fear that filing a workers' comp claim will adversely affect

their future employment which is why Professor Freeman's study indicates

that there are actually more workers who had been injured on the

job refusing to file claims than those actually filing a claim.

This is why your not getting your complaints.

I then spoke

to the issue of quality

of care delivered to injured workers and that the

Workers' Comp Director Shilts stated that there was no evidence that the

closed panel MCO system in Oregon

either improved quality or reduced costs but that this is what the MCO

keep saying as a rational for the very restricted MCO panels. I then

turned and look at each MCO rep around the room as I said that the chiropractic

profession would respectfully ask that you at least consider the possibility

that opening the MCO panels would improve quality of care rather than the

reverse. That by making these panels open or as large as possible that

competition among providers would then occur and would promote quality

care. I explained that if multiple providers or specific to us

chiropractic physicians are all competing for a limited number of injured

workers in any given GSA there would be a incentive for my colleagues to indeed

give each one of those injured workers their professional best.

Why? In hopes that the injured worker will refer not only other injured

workers but their family members, friends, and acquaintances.

Alternatively with the closed panels you have a " captured audience "

injured workers must go to this or that provider and if that provider has as I

say a captured audience 10 more injured workers waiting in the reception room

there is less incentive to give that patient in the room their best because

there are many more waiting. I said we need look no further than some of

the European socialized medical systems to see this phenomenon, people/injured

workers are simply reduced to just being a number. I ended by saying

what my father had told me back in 1981 when I joined the practice he

said: " Son treat every patient like family, like your best friend,

how you would want to be treated if you were hurting and your

patients will always refer and you will always be busy and

successful. " Well when I stopped the negative comments started

in.....all of which were from those defending the MCOs and carriers...for

example...

A fellow

(can't recall his name) to my left a few places who stated earlier in the

meeting that he was a defense attorney who worked for SAIF Corp from 1990-1998

was now the attorney representing Oregon Health System MCO piped up and

said: " Well I'm not convinced that opening the MCO panels is really

in the best interest or serves the MCOs or the insurance carriers

well. " I immediately (oh by the way did I mention the guy was a

complete jerk!) said " I'd like to respond to that " and

immediately said " The staff present can of course correct me if I'm

wrong but as I understand it the Workers' Compensation Division is interested

in providing what is in the best interest of injured workers rather than what

might serve the MCOs and insurance carriers well. " Of course

all the W/C staff present were nodding their collective heads including the

facilitator while the " jerk " red-faced look down at his paper

(sometimes I really do crack me-self up...it was great!).

Well this

post is long enough...

to the

continued good fight,

Vern Saboe

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.4/1275 - Release Date: 2/12/2008 3:20 PM

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.4/1275 - Release Date: 2/12/2008 3:20 PM

[Guest guest]

Probably not....but he will I assure you of that!

Vern Saboe

"Goings on At the Salem State Capitol"

Dear Colleagues,

Just an update as per the special session and goings on relative to us at the capitol. As per the capitol building and substantive bills effecting us? Nothing is the answer, legislators are very limited on the number and type of bills they can introduce for this month long special session.

Alternatively much activity has been happening at the department level. Yesterday I was asked to and participated in an Administrative Rule Advisory Committee meeting/discussion relative to several Workers' Comp Division rules not the least of which were the rules relative to expanding the very restricted MCO W/C provider panels and increasing the $ value on the conversion factors for our RUVs relative to our EM Codes which had be reduced a couple years ago. Interestingly the "Provider Task Force" that was put together to look at reducing the conversion factors failed to appoint a chiropractic physician on the committee and I have asked to be placed on future provider task forces relative to this issue.

About a week and a half ago I pulled a meeting together with the Workers' Comp Division Director and his staff relative to expanding the MCO panels. I asked and bless his heart my friend and your colleague attending the meeting with me Dr. Freeman performed a similar study to that which the CAO performed relative to barriers injured workers were subjected to when wishing to see a chiropractor. The study/survey was commissioned by our good colleagues in ODOC spearheaded by my good friend Dr. Schmidt, to say the least Dr. Freeman's survey results were quite compelling and as always his comments during this high level meeting were both very timely and strategic during this meeting. Subsequent to that meeting the Director agreed to open the Admin Rules that address the minimum number of providers in each "Geographic Service Area (GSA) across the state.

The Monday morning meeting which again took me out of clinic was rather long and the issue of expanding the MCO panels didn't come up until the very end of the meeting, a four and a half hour meeting that ran 35 mins overtime. It was unfortunate that the pro-worker representatives on the committee had left due to other commitments and I was left with a very skewed audience of remaining committee members...namely the MCO representatives, W/C insurance carriers, IME vendors, defense attorneys, and Workers' Comp Division staff. One shining spot in the room however was my now friend big Bob Oleson lobbyist for ODOC sitting behind me if it weren't for Bob the room would have been very, very cold indeed. Nonetheless I delivered by presentation. I spoke of how the CAO and ODOC surveys revealed considerable barriers to injured workers wishing to see one of our colleagues and how this was a disservice to injured workers, a cost driving, in violation of current statute, and fundamentally wrong. That the recent Workers' Comp Division's supposed study/survey noting that they were simply not getting any complaints from injured workers who were saying that they could not see the provider or chiropractor of there choice was flawed. I said that there is some very common sense reasons why we believe you are not getting any complaints and I spelled them out. 1. Injured workers have no idea where or to whom they should complain, they have no idea what DCBS is nor it's contact information they have no clue, nor what BOLI is nor it's contact information, and they certainly don't know of the Investigations & Sanctions Unit, Compliance Section and it's phone number. 2. This is clearly exacerbated by injured workers generally not knowing or clearly understanding their rights, including their treatment rights. As a consequence injured workers are being told they must go to this Occupational Clinic, or this Urgent Care Clinic, or the "Company Doctor" (steering) and even being told by their employer when asked that they can't see a chiropractor "they are not authorized to see a DC this is a work comp case...don't ya know." I told the committee members present that lastly injured workers are not complaining and not filing claims for fear of termination and fear that filing a workers' comp claim will adversely affect their future employment which is why Professor Freeman's study indicates that there are actually more workers who had been injured on the job refusing to file claims than those actually filing a claim. This is why your not getting your complaints.

I then spoke to the issue of quality of care delivered to injured workers and that the Workers' Comp Director Shilts stated that there was no evidence that the closed panel MCO system in Oregon either improved quality or reduced costs but that this is what the MCO keep saying as a rational for the very restricted MCO panels. I then turned and look at each MCO rep around the room as I said that the chiropractic profession would respectfully ask that you at least consider the possibility that opening the MCO panels would improve quality of care rather than the reverse. That by making these panels open or as large as possible that competition among providers would then occur and would promote quality care. I explained that if multiple providers or specific to us chiropractic physicians are all competing for a limited number of injured workers in any given GSA there would be a incentive for my colleagues to indeed give each one of those injured workers their professional best. Why? In hopes that the injured worker will refer not only other injured workers but their family members, friends, and acquaintances. Alternatively with the closed panels you have a "captured audience" injured workers must go to this or that provider and if that provider has as I say a captured audience 10 more injured workers waiting in the reception room there is less incentive to give that patient in the room their best because there are many more waiting. I said we need look no further than some of the European socialized medical systems to see this phenomenon, people/injured workers are simply reduced to just being a number. I ended by saying what my father had told me back in 1981 when I joined the practice he said: "Son treat every patient like family, like your best friend, how you would want to be treated if you were hurting and your patients will always refer and you will always be busy and successful." Well when I stopped the negative comments started in.....all of which were from those defending the MCOs and carriers...for example...

A fellow (can't recall his name) to my left a few places who stated earlier in the meeting that he was a defense attorney who worked for SAIF Corp from 1990-1998 was now the attorney representing Oregon Health System MCO piped up and said: "Well I'm not convinced that opening the MCO panels is really in the best interest or serves the MCOs or the insurance carriers well." I immediately (oh by the way did I mention the guy was a complete jerk!) said "I'd like to respond to that" and immediately said "The staff present can of course correct me if I'm wrong but as I understand it the Workers' Compensation Division is interested in providing what is in the best interest of injured workers rather than what might serve the MCOs and insurance carriers well." Of course all the W/C staff present were nodding their collective heads including the facilitator while the "jerk" red-faced look down at his paper (sometimes I really do crack me-self up...it was great!).

Well this post is long enough...

to the continued good fight,

Vern Saboe

[Guest guest]

Again, thanks Vern.

Annette

[Guest guest]

Thank you for being there for us Vern.

You are like our mom, watching out for us even when we’re not paying attention.

These are the kind of stories that SHOULD make people reconsider contributing to ICE PAK.

Everyone needs to forward your email for friends off the list asking them to donate the minimum $25 per month to ICE PAK.

If everyone did it, we wouldn’t need major donors; and it goes without saying that it would have a rippling effect ala “The Tipping Point”.

Keep up the good work, Vern.

( E. Abrahamson, D.C.)

Chiropractic physician

Lake Oswego Chiropractic Clinic

315 Second Street

Lake Oswego, OR 97034

503-635-6246

Website: http://www.lakeoswegochiro.com

From: Vern Saboe <vsaboe@...>

Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:56:44 -0800

<Oregondcs >

Subject: " Goings on At the Salem State Capitol "

Dear Colleagues,

Just an update as per the special session and goings on relative to us at the capitol. As per the capitol building and substantive bills effecting us? Nothing is the answer, legislators are very limited on the number and type of bills they can introduce for this month long special session.

Alternatively much activity has been happening at the department level. Yesterday I was asked to and participated in an Administrative Rule Advisory Committee meeting/discussion relative to several Workers' Comp Division rules not the least of which were the rules relative to expanding the very restricted MCO W/C provider panels and increasing the $ value on the conversion factors for our RUVs relative to our EM Codes which had be reduced a couple years ago. Interestingly the " Provider Task Force " that was put together to look at reducing the conversion factors failed to appoint a chiropractic physician on the committee and I have asked to be placed on future provider task forces relative to this issue.

About a week and a half ago I pulled a meeting together with the Workers' Comp Division Director and his staff relative to expanding the MCO panels. I asked and bless his heart my friend and your colleague attending the meeting with me Dr. Freeman performed a similar study to that which the CAO performed relative to barriers injured workers were subjected to when wishing to see a chiropractor. The study/survey was commissioned by our good colleagues in ODOC spearheaded by my good friend Dr. Schmidt, to say the least Dr. Freeman's survey results were quite compelling and as always his comments during this high level meeting were both very timely and strategic during this meeting. Subsequent to that meeting the Director agreed to open the Admin Rules that address the minimum number of providers in each " Geographic Service Area (GSA) across the state.

The Monday morning meeting which again took me out of clinic was rather long and the issue of expanding the MCO panels didn't come up until the very end of the meeting, a four and a half hour meeting that ran 35 mins overtime. It was unfortunate that the pro-worker representatives on the committee had left due to other commitments and I was left with a very skewed audience of remaining committee members...namely the MCO representatives, W/C insurance carriers, IME vendors, defense attorneys, and Workers' Comp Division staff. One shining spot in the room however was my now friend big Bob Oleson lobbyist for ODOC sitting behind me if it weren't for Bob the room would have been very, very cold indeed. Nonetheless I delivered by presentation. I spoke of how the CAO and ODOC surveys revealed considerable barriers to injured workers wishing to see one of our colleagues and how this was a disservice to injured workers, a cost driving, in violation of current statute, and fundamentally wrong. That the recent Workers' Comp Division's supposed study/survey noting that they were simply not getting any complaints from injured workers who were saying that they could not see the provider or chiropractor of there choice was flawed. I said that there is some very common sense reasons why we believe you are not getting any complaints and I spelled them out. 1. Injured workers have no idea where or to whom they should complain, they have no idea what DCBS is nor it's contact information they have no clue, nor what BOLI is nor it's contact information, and they certainly don't know of the Investigations & Sanctions Unit, Compliance Section and it's phone number. 2. This is clearly exacerbated by injured workers generally not knowing or clearly understanding their rights, including their treatment rights. As a consequence injured workers are being told they must go to this Occupational Clinic, or this Urgent Care Clinic, or the " Company Doctor " (steering) and even being told by their employer when asked that they can't see a chiropractor " they are not authorized to see a DC this is a work comp case...don't ya know. " I told the committee members present that lastly injured workers are not complaining and not filing claims for fear of termination and fear that filing a workers' comp claim will adversely affect their future employment which is why Professor Freeman's study indicates that there are actually more workers who had been injured on the job refusing to file claims than those actually filing a claim. This is why your not getting your complaints.

I then spoke to the issue of quality of care delivered to injured workers and that the Workers' Comp Director Shilts stated that there was no evidence that the closed panel MCO system in Oregon either improved quality or reduced costs but that this is what the MCO keep saying as a rational for the very restricted MCO panels. I then turned and look at each MCO rep around the room as I said that the chiropractic profession would respectfully ask that you at least consider the possibility that opening the MCO panels would improve quality of care rather than the reverse. That by making these panels open or as large as possible that competition among providers would then occur and would promote quality care. I explained that if multiple providers or specific to us chiropractic physicians are all competing for a limited number of injured workers in any given GSA there would be a incentive for my colleagues to indeed give each one of those injured workers their professional best. Why? In hopes that the injured worker will refer not only other injured workers but their family members, friends, and acquaintances. Alternatively with the closed panels you have a " captured audience " injured workers must go to this or that provider and if that provider has as I say a captured audience 10 more injured workers waiting in the reception room there is less incentive to give that patient in the room their best because there are many more waiting. I said we need look no further than some of the European socialized medical systems to see this phenomenon, people/injured workers are simply reduced to just being a number. I ended by saying what my father had told me back in 1981 when I joined the practice he said: " Son treat every patient like family, like your best friend, how you would want to be treated if you were hurting and your patients will always refer and you will always be busy and successful. " Well when I stopped the negative comments started in.....all of which were from those defending the MCOs and carriers...for example...

A fellow (can't recall his name) to my left a few places who stated earlier in the meeting that he was a defense attorney who worked for SAIF Corp from 1990-1998 was now the attorney representing Oregon Health System MCO piped up and said: " Well I'm not convinced that opening the MCO panels is really in the best interest or serves the MCOs or the insurance carriers well. " I immediately (oh by the way did I mention the guy was a complete jerk!) said " I'd like to respond to that " and immediately said " The staff present can of course correct me if I'm wrong but as I understand it the Workers' Compensation Division is interested in providing what is in the best interest of injured workers rather than what might serve the MCOs and insurance carriers well. " Of course all the W/C staff present were nodding their collective heads including the facilitator while the " jerk " red-faced look down at his paper (sometimes I really do crack me-self up...it was great!).

Well this post is long enough...

to the continued good fight,

Vern Saboe