An act to amend Section 5307.6 of the Labor Code, relating to workers’ compensation.
Summary
SB 668 would amend Labor Code Section 5307.6 to change how California’s workers’ compensation medical-legal fee schedule is updated. The bill authorizes the Administrative Director of the Division of Workers’ Compensation to adjust the medical-legal fee schedule every two years based on an evaluation of medical practice costs, including changes in the conversion factor and the per-page cost of reviewing records, using the most current Medicare Economic Index as a reference. It also requires the schedule to be updated when the director adopts or revises certain other workers’ compensation fee schedules, including those for medical treatment and drugs/pharmacy services.
The bill keeps the existing framework that medical-legal fees are capped by the fee schedule unless a provider documents a reasonable fee justified by extraordinary circumstances, and it preserves the ability of employers and employees to contest excessive charges. It also continues the prohibition on providers accepting additional compensation beyond authorized fees, with violations subject to discipline.
Impact
SB 668 would affect the workers’ compensation system by giving the Division of Workers’ Compensation more explicit authority and a regular two-year cadence to revise medical-legal fees. In practice, this could increase or otherwise recalibrate reimbursement for physicians and other providers who perform medical-legal evaluations, especially if practice costs and record-review expenses have risen. The bill would not create a new benefit program or alter claim eligibility, but it would change the administrative rules governing payment for contested-claim evaluations under Labor Code Section 5307.6 and related fee-schedule coordination provisions.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill was received favorably in committee, with unanimous do-pass support in the recorded vote and no recorded opposition in the provided materials. The measure also advanced to the Appropriations suspense file, indicating it was treated as a fiscal bill requiring further review rather than as a controversial policy proposal. No committee transcript excerpts were provided, so there is no direct record here of floor-level debate or stakeholder testimony.
Contention
The main policy tension in SB 668 is between ensuring that medical-legal evaluators are paid at rates that reflect current practice costs and preserving cost controls within the workers’ compensation system. Supporters would likely view the bill as a needed update to keep the fee schedule aligned with inflation, record-review burdens, and comparable medical work. Potential opponents or cost-conscious stakeholders may be concerned that more frequent or cost-indexed adjustments could raise workers’ compensation system costs for employers and insurers, even though the bill retains fee caps and dispute procedures. The bill text itself does not identify specific opponents, but the likely point of contention is reimbursement adequacy versus system cost containment.