Revise definition of treating physician to include physician assistants without regard to proximity of other providers
Summary
HB 143 revises Montana workers’ compensation law to expand who may serve as a worker’s “treating physician.” Under current law, a treating physician could include certain licensed providers only when no physician was available in the area; this bill removes that proximity limitation for physician assistants. The bill also makes conforming changes to the workers’ compensation impairment-rating statute so that physician assistants are expressly included among the professionals who may evaluate impairment ratings, again without the prior geographic restriction.
The bill amends sections 39-71-116 and 39-71-711, MCA, both within the workers’ compensation chapter. In practical terms, it broadens access to authorized medical providers for injured workers and may reduce delays in treatment coordination and impairment evaluations, especially in areas with limited physician availability. The act takes effect immediately upon passage and approval.
Impact
HB 143 changes state workers’ compensation definitions and procedures by adding physician assistants to the list of authorized treating physicians and impairment evaluators without requiring proof that no physician is nearby. This affects injured workers, insurers, claims examiners, and medical providers operating under Title 39, chapter 71, MCA, and it updates the statutory framework governing medical management of compensable injuries and occupational diseases.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It passed the House committee and floor votes unanimously or nearly unanimously, and it also advanced through the Senate with strong support, including a 44-6 vote on second reading and unanimous final concurrence. The voting pattern suggests general agreement that the change is a practical modernization of workers’ compensation medical access rules.
Contention
No committee transcript is available, and the recorded votes show little overt opposition. The only notable point of potential contention is the policy choice to allow physician assistants to act as treating physicians and impairment evaluators even when a physician is available nearby, which may raise concerns for some stakeholders about scope of practice, provider hierarchy, or workers’ compensation administration. However, the near-unanimous votes indicate those concerns did not generate significant legislative resistance.