Welcome to the IARP Florida legislative Web page! You will find timely legislative and legal updates related to the rehabilitation profession, so visit often. Legal Updates and Opinions: Aquilera vs. Inservices, Florida Supreme Court, June 16, 2005 Brief Summary      Full PDF version of decision

TOP 6 LEGISLATIVE CONCERNS – 2006 Legislative Session
Updated: 12/06/05

1.      REHABILITATION ADVISOR
1.1  Issue: SB50A modified FS 440.15 (1) Permanent Total Disability. – (e) 1. to insert verbiage “the employer’s or carrier’s chosen rehabilitation advisor or provider”

1.2  Concern: Rehabilitation Advisor is an undefined term, which would allow further erosion of QRP qualifications and standards by allowing unlicensed and unqualified providers an entry into the Workers Compensation System. This has the potential of being very detrimental to Injured Workers.

1.3  Recommendations: Rehabilitation Advisor issue is best addressed by simply eliminating the term “Rehabilitation Advisor”.

2.      QRP CERTIFICATION & REGULATION
2.1  Issue: SB50A did not address QRP Certification & Regulation.

2.2  Concerns: In-house and Field Case Managers are ‘the’ personnel responsible for implementing many of the mandates of previous and current FS. Re-organization of DWC personal, responsibility and changes in mission have fragmented the process. The current bi-annual training and certification process is not certified or recognized by any professional organization or credentialing body. The entire training group within the DWC has been eliminated. The BRRS does not have a training staff. This function as become an additional duty for operations personnel. QRPs now deal with more Bureaus and Departments as a result of the Florida State administrative re-organization. It has become virtually impossible to determine who is responsible as separate personal groups within DWC, BRRS and AHCA each have limited concerns. No one Bureau or Department has assumed full responsibility for QRPs.

2.3  Recommendations: 1. Evaluate the feasibility of returning the Certification & Regulation of Medical & Vocational QRPs to the Department of Professional Regulation. and / or 2. Provide DWC and BRRS with sufficient funds and personnel to implement FS as mandated according to the legislative intent of 440.491 (7).

3.      ENFORCEMENT
3.1  Issue: SB50A did not specifically address the issue of enforcement of existing statutory requirements under – FS 440.491 (3) (a) for the employer / carrier to provide Reemployment Status Reviews at 90 day intervals once the IW has been unemployed 60 days post-injury. SB50A did not address enforcement of Provider Qualifications under – FS 440.491 (7) (d) & (e). SB50A did not address enforcement of FS 440.491 (8) Carrier Practices – requirement that carriers only hire QRPs to provide services  in keeping with the legislative intent.

3.2  Concerns: The intention of the 1993 FS was to expedite evaluations, provision of services and return to work. Failure to enforce Reemployment Status Reviews 60 days post-injury and at 90 day intervals thereafter has precluded the ‘early intervention’ and potential for early return to work of Injured Workers. Non-QRP providers are currently providing services. The BRRS and DWC are mandated to consult with the private sector regarding the Provider Qualification issue by FS 440.491 (7) (e).

3.3  Recommendations: Specific fines or sanctions should be established to encourage carrier compliance with existing FS for submission of Reemployment Status Reviews on every case 60 days post-injury. Any fines should be sufficiently high to fund the personnel necessary to implement the FS 440.491 (3) (a); (7) (d) and (8).  The BRRS, DWC and AHCA should coordinate a concerted effort as mandated by the FS to ensure employer / carrier use of QRPs in keeping with the legislative intent of the statute and communication with the major professional organizations in keeping with the intent of FS 440.491 (7) (e).  Insert “Fines sufficient to ensure compliance with this section shall be established” in FS 440.491 (3) (a); (7) (d); and (8).

4.      MEDICAL GUIDELINES
4.1  Issue: SB50A created new language for FS 440.13 (15) including “The practice parameters and protocols under this chapter shall be the practice parameters and protocols adopted by the United States Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality in effect on January 1, 2003.”

4.2  Concerns: The United States Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (USAHRA) does not provide medical guidelines or specific standards applicable to the Workers Compensation arena. Unlike the more common medical guidelines, including Milliman & Robertson, MDA by Pressley Reed; USAHRA does ‘not’ provide a time specific or treatment guideline for diagnosis codes based on community standards. It provides research with multiple opinions. This is not a true guideline that could be referred to by Claim Adjusters or Medical Case Managers. It is likely to create more delays and confusion with authorization of medical services to Injured Workers. The net result may be further litigation and delay in treatment.

4.3  Recommendations: FS 440.13 (15) should be re-written to mandate use of commonly recognized medical treatment and protocol guidelines accepted by industry standard. Other states have specifically mandated the use of proven WC medical guidelines. Florida could mandate that nationally recognized guidelines are incorporated in the guidelines developed and adapted for use by employers and carriers or their designated agents.

5.      REEMPLOYMENT ASSESSMENT (REA) – VOCATIONAL TESTING
5.1  Issue: SB50A did ‘not’ address this issue. Current FS 440.491 (1) Definitions. – (e) “Reemployment assessment” as currently defined does not include the term ‘vocational testing’.

5.2  Concern: The absence of the term ‘vocational testing’ has often precluded the use of vocational testing by QRPs. Claimant’s Attorneys may cite FS 440.491(5)(b) and (6)(a) that only the BRRS conduct Vocational Evaluations. Two practical problems occur: 1. Early intervention is blocked; 2. The employer / carrier is blocked from obtaining a full evaluation as intended by the 1993 statute, prior to acceptance of the Injured Worker (IW) as PT.

5.3  Recommendations: Insert verbiage to modify one sentence in the current FS 440.491 (1) Definitions. (e) to read “…. ; Vocational Testing, if determined necessary by the QRP; and recommends a cost-effective….”

6.      PRIVATE SECTOR PROVIDER DVR CONTRACTS
6.1 Issue: Florida Statute 287.057 (f) (7) currently precludes competitive bids or consideration of private sector providers for contracts less than $25,000. Policy exceptions are rare.

6.2 Concern: This Florida Statute and related DVR policy effectively eliminate case work contracts for IARP Members. Non-profit organizations now obtain this work with no competition or consideration of private providers.

6.3 Recommendations: 1. Evaluate the feasibility of changes in either Statute or Administrative Rules to allow for private sector providers to obtain DVR contracts.  2.  Determine if the private contract issue may be resolved with DVR policy change.

Legislative Efforts-we need your support:
The Florida IARP Chapter has been represented by lobbyist Fausto Gomez during the past 3 legislative sessions. Our organization has been served extremely well by Mr. Gomez, who has been able to schedule appointments with various senators and representatives for IARP legislative committee members to meet and present our platform. Mr. Gomez was able to schedule 2 IARP speakers at last year’s committee meeting of the Banking and Insurance Committee that was writing a “Glitch” bill. We feel that our organization and profession are in much better standing in Tallahassee at this time.

The 2006 legislative session begins March 14, 2006. We are quite confident that significant work will be undertaken in regard to Worker’s Compensation. Although the Senate passed a “Glitch” bill last year (containing many items favorable to IARP), the bill did not reach the House in time to be passed there. In fact, the only Worker’s Comp bill to pass both houses, was vetoed by the Governor. That was a special funding bill for the JUA.

So the issues that we were successful on last year will need to be readdressed again this year, in both the House and the Senate. The specific issues that we are dealing with include; eliminating the term “rehab advisor” which was introduced but undefined in the new law, add vocational testing to the Reemployment Assessment and expand and improve the definitions for medical protocol. We are finding a good deal of support for our positions.

Your IARP Legislative Committee is listed at the bottom of this page. We invite you to call or e-mail committee members with any thoughts or concerns that you may have.

All of this work takes money, and has been funded in part, through donations made by membership. However, a large part of these expenses have come at the cost of the general IARP budget. Donations are absolutely necessary at this time, for this work to continue, including the continued representation by Mr. Gomez.

We are asking each IARP member to donate $100.00 for continued legislative activity. The donations can be sent in total, or in installments. That’s only $8.33 per month! Your individual support is needed! 

Please send your donation to:

Claire Hibbard, Treasurer
IARP Florida Chapter
4604 Atlantic Blvd. Suite 1B
Jacksonville, FL 32207