Are you a provider participating in Stage 2 of meaningful use for the Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Programs? If so, use the new CMS Stage 2 Meaningful Use Attestation Calculator to determine if you will successfully meet Stage 2 requirements. Like the Stage 1 calculator, eligible professionals, eligible hospitals, and critical access hospitals (CAHs) can enter and review their data for each measure. The tool then calculates whether or not you will successfully demonstrate Stage 2 of meaningful use. A results page explains why you may or may not receive an incentive payment by displaying a pass/fail summary for each measure.

Get Started

Take four easy steps to get started:
   • Select your provider type: eligible professional or eligible hospital/CAH
   • Answer questions on your meaningful use core objectives
   • Answer questions on your meaningful use menu objectives
   • Receive your results

Be sure to answer each measure you intend to meet by either filling in the numerator and denominator values or marking down an exclusion (for those that apply).

Please note: The attestation calculator is not actual attestation and does not guarantee that you will meet the program’s qualifications. It is only a guide of whether or not you would meet the program’s Stage 2 meaningful use requirements.

Resources Providers who have completed at least two years of Stage 1 of meaningful use will demonstrate Stage 2 in 2014. Additional Stage 2 resources:
   • Stage 2 Guide
   • Stage 2 Meaningful Use Specification Sheet Table of Contents for Eligible Professionals
   • Stage 2 Meaningful Use Specification Sheet Table of Contents for Eligible Hospitals and CAHs
   • Stage 2 Data Sharing Tipsheet for Eligible Professionals

Want more information? Visit the Registration and Attestation and Stage 2 pages for useful resources to help you successfully demonstrate meaningful use.

On April 9, as part of the Obama administration’s work to make our health care system more transparent, affordable, and accountable, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced the release of new, privacy-protected data on services and procedures provided to Medicare beneficiaries by physicians and other health care professionals. The new data also show payment and submitted charges, or bills, for those services and procedures by provider.

The new data set has information for over 880,000 distinct health care providers who collectively received $77 billion in Medicare payments in 2012, under the Medicare Part B Fee-For-Service program. With this data, it will be possible to conduct a wide range of analyses that compare 6,000 different types of services and procedures provided, as well as payments received by individual health care providers.

The information also allows comparisons by physician, specialty, location, the types of medical service and procedures delivered, Medicare payment, and submitted charges. Physicians and other health care professionals determine what they will charge for services and procedures provided to patients and these “charges” are the amount the physician or health care professional generally bills for the service or procedure.

Last May, CMS released hospital charge data allowing consumers to compare what hospitals charge for common inpatient and outpatient services across the country.

Full text of this excerpted CMS press release (issued April 9).

Abstract

---

Background

Several tests have been suggested to assess the isometric endurance of the cervical flexor (NFME) and extensors (NEE) muscles. This study proposes to determine whether neck flexors endurance is related to extensor endurance, and whether cervical muscle endurance is related to disability, pain amount and pain stage in subjects with neck pain.

Methods

Thirty subjects (18 women, 12 men, mean ± SD age: 43 ± 12 years) complaining of neck pain filled out the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the Neck Pain and Disability Scale-Italian version (NPDS-I). They also completed the timed endurance tests for the cervical muscles.

Results

The mean endurance was 246.7 ± 150 seconds for the NEE test, and 44.9 ± 25.3 seconds for the NMFE test. A significant correlation was found between the results of these two tests (r = 0.52, p = 0.003). A positive relationship was also found between VAS and NPDS-I (r = 0.549, p = 0.002). The endurance rates were similar for acute/subacute and chronic subjects, whereas males demonstrated significantly higher values compared to females in NFME test.

Conclusions

These findings suggest that neck flexors and extensors endurance are correlated and that the cervical endurance is not significantly altered by the duration of symptoms in subjects with neck pain.

Abstract (provisional)

---

Background

Clinical practice guidelines on the management of neck pain make recommendations to help practitioners optimize patient care. By examining the practice patterns of practitioners, adherence to CPGs or lack thereof, is demonstrated. Understanding utilization of various treatments by practitioners and comparing these patterns to that of recommended guidelines is important to identify gaps for knowledge translation and improve treatment regimens. Aim To describe the utilization of interventions in patients with neck pain by clinicians.

Methods

A cross-sectional international survey was conducted from February 2012 to March 2013 to determine physical medicine, complementary and alternative medicine utilization amongst 360 clinicians treating patients with neck pain.

Results

The survey was international (19 countries) with Canada having the largest response (38%). Results were analyzed by usage amongst physical therapists (38%) and chiropractors (31%) as they were the predominant respondents. Within these professions, respondents were male (41-66%) working in private practice (69-95%). Exercise and manual therapies were consistently (98-99%) used by both professions but tests of subgroup differences determined that physical therapists used exercise, orthoses and `other? interventions more, while chiropractors used phototherapeutics more. However, phototherapeutics (65%), Orthoses/supportive devices (57%), mechanical traction (55%) and sonic therapies (54%) were not used by the majority of respondents. Thermal applications (73%) and acupuncture (46%) were the modalities used most commonly. Analysis of differences across the subtypes of neck pain indicated that respondents utilize treatments more often for chronic neck pain and whiplash conditions, followed by radiculopathy, acute neck pain and whiplash conditions, and facet joint dysfunction by diagnostic block. The higher rates of usage of some interventions were consistent with supporting evidence (e.g. manual therapy). However, there was moderate usage of a number of interventions that have limited support or conflicting evidence (e.g. ergonomics).

Conclusions

This survey indicates that exercise and manual therapy are core treatments provided by chiropractors and physical therapists. Future research should address gaps in evidence associated with variable practice patterns and knowledge translation to reduce usage of some interventions that have been shown to be ineffective.

Abstract (provisional)

---

Objective

The purpose of this case report is to describe a patient that presented with a Mason type II radial neck fracture approximately three weeks following a traumatic injury.

Clinical features

A 59-year old female presented to a chiropractic practice with complaints of left lateral elbow pain distal to the lateral epicondyle of the humerus and pain provocation with pronation, supination and weight bearing. The complaint originated three weeks prior following a fall on her left elbow while hiking.

Intervention and outcome

Plain film radiographs of the left elbow and forearm revealed a transverse fracture of the radial neck with 2mm displacement--classified as a Mason Type II fracture. The patient was referred for medical follow-up with an orthopedist.

Conclusion

This report discusses triage of an elbow fracture presenting to a chiropractic clinic. This case study demonstrates the thorough clinical examination, imaging and decision making that assisted in appropriate patient diagnosis and management.

Abstract (provisional)

---

Background

This systematic review updated and extended the "UK evidence report" by Bronfort et al. (Chiropr Osteopath 18:3, 2010) with respect to conditions/interventions that received an 'inconclusive? or 'negative? evidence rating or were not covered in the report.

Methods

A literature search of more than 10 general medical and specialised databases was conducted in August 2011 and updated in March 2013. Systematic reviews, primary comparative studies and qualitative studies of patients with musculoskeletal or non-musculoskeletal conditions treated with manual therapy and reporting clinical outcomes were included. Study quality was assessed using standardised instruments, studies were summarised, and the results were compared against the evidence ratings of Bronfort. These were either confirmed, updated, or new categories not assessed by Bronfort were added.

Results

25,539 records were found; 178 new and additional studies were identified, of which 72 were systematic reviews, 96 were randomised controlled trials, and 10 were non-randomised primary studies. Most 'inconclusive? or 'moderate? evidence ratings of the UK evidence report were confirmed. Evidence ratings changed in a positive direction from inconclusive to moderate evidence ratings in only three cases (manipulation/mobilisation [with exercise] for rotator cuff disorder; spinal mobilisation for cervicogenic headache; and mobilisation for miscellaneous headache). In addition, evidence was identified on a large number of non-musculoskeletal conditions not previously considered; most of this evidence was rated as inconclusive.

Conclusions

Overall, there was limited high quality evidence for the effectiveness of manual therapy. Most reviewed evidence was of low to moderate quality and inconsistent due to substantial methodological and clinical diversity. Areas requiring further research are highlighted.

Seneca Falls: On Saturday, April 5, at 10:00 AM New York Chiropractic College will hold its commencement exercises in the Standard Process Health and Fitness Center conferring Doctor of Chiropractic degrees to 44 candidates.

The commencement address will be delivered by Auburn's Scott E. Kilmer, DC, Chairman of the New York State Board of Chiropractic Recognized for his dedication to the chiropractic profession, Dr. Kilmer operates a private practice in Auburn, NY, assists the Auburn Memorial Hospital, serves on the New York State Association of County Coroners and Medical Examiners, and is the current Cayuga County Coroner Investigator. He has authored chiropractic publications and delivered professional lectures around the country. Affiliated with the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners since 1998, he is also recipient of the Distinguished Service Award for District 12 of the New York State Chiropractic Association (NYSCA). A Diplomate of the American Board of Chiropractic Orthopedists, he is also a member of the Academy of Chiropractic Orthopedists.

Among those to be honored as 2014 Fellows of the American College of Chiropractors (FACC) during the commencement exercises are John J. LaMonica, DC (NYCC '85), president of the New York Chiropractic Council; Michael P. Norworth, MA; founder of MPN Software Systems; NYCC Board of Trustees Chair John P. Rosa, DC (NYCC '92); and co-founder of MPN Software Systems, Karen M. Walters, DC (NYCC '82).

Abstract (provisional)

---

Background

Low back pain in pregnancy is common and research evidence on the response to chiropractic treatment is limited. The purposes of this study are 1) to report outcomes in pregnant patients receiving chiropractic treatment; 2) to compare outcomes from subgroups; 3) to assess predictors of outcome.

Methods

Pregnant patients with low back or pelvic pain, no contraindications to manipulative therapy and no manual therapy in the prior 3 months were recruited.

Baseline numerical rating scale (NRS) and Oswestry questionnaire data were collected. Duration of complaint, number of previous LBP episodes, LBP during a previous pregnancy, and category of pain location were recorded.

The patient's global impression of change (PGIC) (primary outcome), NRS, and Oswestry data (secondary outcomes) were collected at 1 week, 1 and 3 months after the first treatment. At 6 months and 1 year the PGIC and NRS scores were collected. PGIC responses of 'better or 'much better' were categorized as 'improved'.

The proportion of patients 'improved' at each time point was calculated. Chi-squared test compared subgroups with 'improvement'. Baseline and follow-up NRS and Oswestry scores were compared using the paired t-test. The unpaired t-test compared NRS and Oswestry scores in patients with and without a history of LBP and with and without LBP during a previous pregnancy. Anova compared baseline and follow-up NRS and Oswestry scores by pain location category and category of number of previous LBP episodes. Logistic regression analysis also was also performed.

Results

52% of 115 recruited patients 'improved' at 1 week, 70% at 1 month, 85% at 3 months, 90% at 6 months and 88% at 1 year. There were significant reductions in NRS and Oswestry scores (p < 0.0005). Category of previous LBP episodes number at one year (p = 0.02) was related to [single low-9 quotation mark]improvement' when analyzed alone, but was not strongly predictive in logistic regression. Patients with more prior LBP episodes had higher 1 year NRS scores (p = 0.013).

Conclusions

Most pregnant patients undergoing chiropractic treatment reported clinically relevant improvement at all time points. No single variable was strongly predictive of[single low-9 quotation mark] improvement' in the logistic regression model

Abstract (provisional)

---

Background

Little is known about the level of consensus within the French chiropractic profession regarding management of clinical issues. A previous Swedish study showed that chiropractors agreed relatively well on the management strategy for nine low back pain scenarios. We wished to investigate whether those findings could be reproduced among French chiropractors.

Objectives

1. To assess the level of consensus among French chiropractors regarding management strategies for nine different scenarios of low back pain. 2. To assess whether the management choices of the French chiropractors appeared reasonable for the low back pain scenarios. 3. To compare French management patterns with those described in the previous survey of Swedish chiropractors.

Method

A postal questionnaire was sent to a randomly selected sample of 167 French chiropractors in 2009. The questionnaire described a 40-year old man with low back pain, and presented nine hypothetical short-term outcome scenarios and six possible management strategies. For each of the nine scenarios, participants were asked to choose the management strategy that they would recommend. The percentages of respondents choosing the different management strategies were identified for each scenario. Appropriateness of the chosen management strategy was assessed using predetermined ?best practice? for each scenario. Consensus was arbitrarily defined as ?moderate? when 50- 69% of respondents agreed on the same management choice for a scenario, and ?excellent? when 70% or more provided the same answer.

Results

Excellent consensus was achieved for only one scenario, and moderate consensus for two scenarios. For five of the nine scenarios, the most common answers were in agreement with the ?best practice? management strategies. Consensus between the French and Swedish responses on the most appropriate management was seen in five of the nine scenarios and these were all in agreement with the expected answer.

Conclusion

There was reasonable consensus among the French chiropractors in their choice of treatment strategy for low back pain and choices were generally in line with ?best practice?. The differences in response between the French and Swedish chiropractors suggest that cultural and/or educational differences influence the conceptual framework within which chiropractors practice.

Arlington, Va.—The American Chiropractic Association (ACA) today announced its intention to appeal the recent dismissal of its claims against American Specialty Health Inc. and American Specialty Health Networks Inc. (collectively, "ASHN"), and CIGNA Corporation and Connecticut General Life Insurance Company (collectively, "CIGNA"). Significantly, the dismissal was based upon a variety of procedural considerations--not the substance of ACA’s claims.

ACA’s legal counsel is optimistic about the chances of a successful appeal, noting that this area of the law is the subject of increasing judicial focus.

“Recently, there have been several significant rulings recognizing that providers are entitled to assert claims under ERISA to challenge benefit determinations by insurers, including with regard to recoupments of previously issued payments”,” said Brian Hufford, Esq., of Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, who represents ACA in the class action suit. "We believe that federal courts are increasingly recognizing that individual providers and associations such as the ACA have standing to assert the claims brought in this action.”

ACA's litigation against ASHN and CIGNA alleges, among other things, that CIGNA--in violation of ERISA--failed to comply with terms and conditions of its plan to afford subscribers or their health care providers an opportunity to obtain a "full and fair review" of denied or reduced reimbursement, and failed to make appropriate and non-misleading disclosures to subscribers or their health care providers.

"ACA took this action against ASHN and CIGNA because it is patients who suffer most when doctors must choose between providing necessary care and adhering to requirements imposed by payers," said ACA President Anthony Hamm, DC. "We will not rest until patients receive the care they need and have paid for through their insurance premiums."

Providers who believe they and/or their patients have been affected by ASHN and/or CIGNA's improper practices can visit the Chiropractic Networks Action Center to submit a complaint to ACA.

---

The American Chiropractic Association (ACA), based in Arlington, VA, is the largest professional association in the United States advocating for more than 130,000 doctors of chiropractic (DCs), chiropractic assistants (CAs) and chiropractic students. ACA promotes the highest standards of ethics and patient care, contributing to the health and well-being of millions of chiropractic patients. Visit us at www.acatoday.org.

The timeline that CMS provided to allow providers to transition from the old version of the CMS-1500 claim form (08/05) is coming to an end. Effective April 1, claims will only be accepted if submitted on the new version of the claim form identified by the date 02/12 in the lower right hand corner. The CMS-1500 Form has been revised to give providers the ability to indicate whether they are using the International Classification of Diseases, ninth edition, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes or its successor, the ICD-10-CM and allows for additional diagnostic codes to be reported. Additional changes were made to item numbers 14, 15 and 17, which now have qualifiers to identify provider roles such as ordering, referring or supervising. ACA has prepared a 1500 Claim Form Fact Sheet, which is free to members, to assist your clinic in making the needed changes. Further information from CMS on this topic can be found here.

Additionally, the National Uniform Claim Committee (NUCC) has developed a 1500 Reference Instruction Manual detailing how to complete the claim form. The purpose of this manual is to help standardize nationally the manner in which the form is being completed. The current version of the instructions (v 9.0) was released in July 2013: Version 9.0 7/13

1. How long do I have to submit my appeal request?
   
   Answer: You have 120 days from the date of the original Medicare remittance advice to submit an appeal. Multiple resubmissions of a claim will not extend the 120-day time limit. The time limit begins with the original denied/processed claim. 
2. Can an appeal be filed past the 120-day limit?
   
   Answer: The time limit may be extended if good cause for late filing is shown. If good cause is not found, the request for appeal will be dismissed. The issue of good cause for the provider and beneficiary is addressed in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Internet-Only Manual (IOM) Publication 100-04, Medicare Claims Processing Manual, Chapter 29, Section 240. (982 KB) 
3. Must a redetermination request have a signature, and what type of signature is needed?
   
   Answer: Yes, it must be a full signature (first and last name) on the redetermination request form in order for it to be a valid request. 
4. How can I follow up on claims that are already in the appeal process?
   
   Answer: Please visit http://www.NGSConnex.com or call our IVR system at 877-908-9499. Both of these self-service tools allow providers/suppliers to obtain the status of all redetermination/reopening requests. Remember, the contractor has 60 days from the date the appeal was received to make a determination. 
5. I have made corrections to my denied claim. Should I rebill?
   
   Answer: A claim should only be rebilled if the claim was rejected with message MA130. If the claim denies for any other reason, do not rebill as it could result in a duplicate claim or cause delay of payment. 
6. What is a reopening?
   
   Answer: A reopening is an alternative to the appeals process where minor errors or omissions in filing claims have occurred. For more information regarding the appeals process, visit the Review Process > Appeals section on our Web site. 
7. How do you determine whether you need to submit a first level appeal request (the redetermination) or a second level appeal request (the reconsideration)?
   
   Answer: An initial claim submission will show the MA01 remark code, which states you have 120 days to appeal and request a redetermination. If you see this remark code on your claim, you need to request a redetermination from us.
   
   Adjustments resulting from a redetermination decision can be identified by the remark code of MA02, “If you do not agree with this determination, you have the right to appeal. You must file a written request for appeal within 180 days of the date you receive this notice.
   
   Please note the difference in the amount of time to request a second level appeal, also known as the reconsideration. The MA02 message gives you appeal rights for the second level appeal or the reconsideration. If you wish to appeal claim adjustments with the MA02 remark code, you must file a reconsideration request to the Qualified Independent Contractor. 
8. Do redetermination requests have to be made in writing?
   
   Answer: Yes, they have to be made in writing or sent electronically through the http://www.NGSConnex.com portal. 
9. Where can I find the redetermination form?
   
   Answer: The National Government Services Medicare Redetermination Request form, along with additional information, is located under Quick Links > Forms.
   
   Related Content: Medicare Redetermination Request Form - First Level of Appeal (CMS-20027) 
10. Can I request a redetermination for all services in question on a specific claim at one time, or must I submit a separate redetermination form for each service in question?
    
    Answer: No, you do not have to submit a separate form for each service on the claim. In fact, we encourage you to request a redetermination for all services in question on the claim at one time. This ensures a faster response since any adjustments that need to be performed on your claim can be done at one time. This will also cut down on the number of letters and remittances you receive from us.

---

These questions and answers come from the NGS Medicare frequently asked question (FAQ) database. FAQs cover a variety of topics and are a great resource for answering your questions, please visit our Web site at http://www.NGSMedicare.com, choose your Jurisdiction and Business and click on the FAQ tab.

The NYSCA at its annual convention at Mohegan Sun (Uncasville, CT) presented a robust educational forum that highlight changes in healthcare and the potential role for chiropractic.

Friday afternoon began with Dr. John Ventura (NYSCA District 15 member, former ACA alternate delegate, board member WHG) laying the groundwork for the chiropractor as primary spine care provider. He presented evidence for the qualifications of chiropractic, the interaction of the stakeholders and current platforms in which this is already occurring.

Saturday morning included newly elected ACA President Dr. Anthony Hamm leading an informative and well received introduction to ICD 10 coding, which takes effect on 10/01/2014. Dr. Hamm is the co-chair of the AMA’s RVS Update Committee (RUC) Health Care Professionals Advisory Committee Review Board (HCPAC) and has lectured extensively on coding and documentation.

Saturday’s annual luncheon featured a dynamic keynote address by ACA immediate past president and Connecticut native Dr. Keith Overland. In his address, Dr. Overland highlighted some of ACA’s activities including maintaining section 2706 of the health care reform law which prevents health plans from arbitrarily excluding the participation and coverage of entire categories of providers based solely on their licensure. The law enables patients to receive care from any provider who is licensed in a state to provide a specific benefit covered through an exchange health plan; working with the VA and DOD to expand chiropractic services and establish residency programs for chiropractors in the VA system; meeting with CMS to begin obtaining increased coverage for chiropractic services in the Medicare system, beginning with E&M codes. He enthusiastically supported the continued relationship between the NYSCA and the ACA and explained the need for these affiliations and how the interplay between the states and the national organization strength our small profession and allow us to pool our resources as we move forward in the healthcare arena

Following his address, Dr. Overland was awarded the NYSCA Lifetime Achievement Award, recognizing his contributions to the chiropractic profession. Dr. Overland is the immediate past president of the American Chiropractic Association. He has also served on ACA’s Health Care Reform Task Force as well as served as co- chair of the Connecticut Governors Committee on Physical Fitness, a member of Sen. Joseph Lieberman’s Health Care Task Force and a member of Rep. Christopher Shays’ Task Force on Human Services. He is the past president of both the Connecticut Chiropractic Association and the New England Chiropractic Council.

Mrs. Carol Beige was awarded an Outstanding Service Award for her many years of dedicated service with the NYSCA.

Also honored were the following doctors for 50 years in practice: Dr. John Pellegrino, Dr. Henry Keidel, Dr. Robert Gregory, Dr. Paul Muscolino, and Dr. Seymore Mac Goldstein.

On February 11, 2014, the Chair of the Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) adopted amendments to the regulations governing the conduct and reporting of Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs) (12 NYCRR §300.2). The amended regulation became effective on February 26, 2014.

This Subject Number highlights the significant changes contained in the amended regulation. The complete text of the amended regulation is located on the Board’s website under Laws, Regulations and Decisions.

Notices, Provision of Information, and Requests for Information

Service of Notices by Overnight Mail: Notice of the scheduled IME may be made using overnight mail as long as the notice is received by the claimant at least seven days prior to the scheduled examination.

Provision of Information: A new requirement has been added to the regulation that requires that every record, document, or test result supplied to an IME examiner for review in connection with an IME or records review must be a part of the Board file. Any information that is not already part of the Board file must be submitted before or at the time the IME or records review is arranged. Information submitted to the Board before or at the time the IME is arranged should not be submitted to the Board as a Request for Information using an IME-3.

Note: The submitting IME examiner must list all documents, reports, and other items reviewed in the IME or records review report.

Requests for Information: An IME-3 must be submitted to the Board when the provider receives any substantive communication regarding the claimant. An IME-3 shall not include documents, records, and items that are part of the Board file.

Reports of Examinations without Physical Examination or Records Reviews

A records review conducted by a medical provider without physically examining the claimant must be completed by a medical provider authorized to treat workers’ compensation claimants or authorized to conduct IMEs, or “qualified” within the meaning of 12 NYCRR §300.2 (b)(9). A medical provider that completes a records review must adhere to the rules governing IME reports at 12 NYCRR §300.2 (d)(4) including certifying the contents of the report and listing every document, record, or item reviewed in connection with the records review. A report of a records review must be submitted to all parties and the Board at least three business days before the hearing where it will be referenced.

Videotaping of IMEs

The amended regulation clarifies that an IME examiner may not refuse to conduct an IME when a claimant appears at the IME prepared to record or videotape the IME. A party (or agent of a party) may not alter a recording or videotape, nor may a videotape be distributed beyond its use in a hearing of the Board.

Reports

The amended regulation sets forth specific criteria for the content, certification, and signing of an IME report and a records review report. The reports must list all documents, records, and items reviewed by the examiner. Any questionnaires or intake sheets completed by the claimant must be attached to the report. In addition to the parties and the Board, copies of all reports must be submitted to attending providers that have treated the claimant within the last six months. The regulation states that a treating provider who examined the claimant solely for consultation or to perform a diagnostic test does not need to receive a copy of the report. The regulation specifies that a report may not be based on a checklist or questionnaire.

Exemptions

The amended regulation clarifies that a carrier's medical professional, as that term is defined in 12 NYCRR §324.1 (c), is not an IME examiner within the meaning of WCL §137 and 12 NYCRR §300.2. In addition, an examination conducted at a clinic that is a member of an occupational health network established pursuant to WCL §151 (3) is not an IME within the meaning of WCL §137 and 12 NYCRR §300.2.

IME entities

The term IME entity is defined. Services that may be supplied by an IME entity are described. The amended regulation sets forth clear and specific rules for IME reports submitted by IME entities. The amended regulation also clarifies that the IME examiner is responsible for certifying the contents of a report and that an IME report may not be derived from an IME examiner completing a checklist or form. The process for registering an IME entity is updated.

Suspension and revocation of the authorization of IME examiners and IME entities

The amended regulation updates the process and basis for suspending and revoking the authorization of a provider to perform IMEs and records reviews. The process and basis corresponds to the process and basis for suspending and revoking the authorization of treating providers as set forth in WCL §13-d.

The amended regulation also sets forth a process for revoking the registration of an IME entity.

Robert E. Beloten
Chair