- States’ regulations and MCO guidelines may restrict, or at a minimum, discourage carriers and employers from considering treatment in another state where they may lose control of the injury claim.
- State fee schedules may be misaligned with applying a value based, bundled price for treatment in a state outside of where the injury occurred, and the claimant resides.
- Direction of care statutes may prevent employees from being channeled to a provider outside of their choosing, much less in another state.
- There isn’t always “goodwill” between an employee and their employer after an injury. The concept of sending the employee out of state for care may not be a comfortable proposition for either party.
- Since there is no financial participation on behalf of the employee, compliance with set appointments may be an issue.
- Workers’ compensation adjusters prefer to have specified workflows and may be hesitant to inject intra-state travel coordination tasks and “unknowns” to their heavy caseload.
- The indemnity costs, time off work, and disability assessment could be negatively impacted by any incidental injury /episode which may occur during the claimants’ travels to a center of excellence.
- Where would the funding for a caregiver’s travel with the claimant come from and how would it be accounted for in the claim? Who would be responsible if the caregiver suffers an injury during travel with the claimant?
- Who would be responsible for clinically managing the workers’ compensation care (primary treating physician) and coordinating / submitting the necessary state forms?
More stories
Mitchell Canadian Collision Summary: Q2 2017
This data is the product of upload activity from body shops, independent appraisers, and insurance personnel, more accurately depicting insurance-paid loss activity, rather than consumer direct or retail market pricing.
Mitchell Collision Repair Industry Data: Q1 2017
The initial average appraisal value, calculated by combining data from all first and third-party repairable vehicle appraisals uploaded through Mitchell systems in Q1 2017, was $3,018, $4 less than this same period last year. However, continued development suggests a final Q1 2017 average appraisal value of $3,047, which represents an increase of the same quarter last year.
Mitchell Collision Repair Industry Data: Q2 2017
The initial average appraisal value, calculated by combining data from all first and third-party repairable vehicle appraisals uploaded through Mitchell systems in Q2 2017, was $3,046. Continued development suggests a final Q2 2017 average appraisal value of $3,143, which represents an increase of $122 compared to the same quarter last year.
Mitchell Total Loss Data: Q1 2017
The chart below illustrates the total loss data for both vehicle age and actual cash value of total loss vehicles processed through Mitchell servers.
Motor Vehicle Markets: Q1 2017
The tale of two markets resumed in March, as wholesale prices were below year-ago levels for cars and above prior year for trucks. Nevertheless, both groups showed price increases versus February’s unseasonably soft results, as retail sales and wholesale activity showed signs of the traditional spring/tax season market typical for used vehicles.
Motor Vehicle Markets: Q2 2017
The following commentary is produced monthly by Tom Kontos, Executive Vice-President, ADESA Analytical Services. ADESA is a leading provider of wholesale used vehicle auctions and ancillary remarketing services.