2023 Texas Statutes › Labor Code › Title 5 - Workers' Compensation › Subtitle A - Texas Workers' Compensation Act › Chapter 413 - Medical Review › Subchapter C. Dispute Resolution › Section 413.031. Medical Dispute Resolution

Sec. 413.031.  MEDICAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION.  (a)  A party, including a health care provider, is entitled to a review of a medical service provided or for which authorization of payment is sought if a health care provider is:
(1)  denied payment or paid a reduced amount for the medical service rendered;
(2)  denied authorization for the payment for the service requested or performed if authorization is required or allowed by this subtitle or commissioner rules;
(3)  ordered by the commissioner to refund a payment received; or
(4)  ordered to make a payment that was refused or reduced for a medical service rendered.
(b)  A health care provider who submits a charge in excess of the fee guidelines or treatment policies is entitled to a review of the medical service to determine if reasonable medical justification exists for the deviation.  A claimant is entitled to a review of a medical service for which preauthorization is sought by the health care provider and denied by the insurance carrier.  The commissioner shall adopt rules to notify claimants of their rights under this subsection.
(c)  In resolving disputes over the amount of payment due for services determined to be medically necessary and appropriate for treatment of a compensable injury, the role of the division is to adjudicate the payment given the relevant statutory provisions and commissioner rules.  The division shall publish on its Internet website the division's medical dispute decisions, including decisions of independent review organizations, and any subsequent decisions by the State Office of Administrative Hearings.  Before publication, the division shall redact only that information necessary to prevent identification of the injured worker.
(d)  A review of the medical necessity of a health care service requiring preauthorization under Section 413.014 or commissioner rules under that section or Section 413.011(g) shall be conducted by an independent review organization under Chapter 4202, Insurance Code, in the same manner as reviews of utilization review decisions by health maintenance organizations.  It is a defense for the insurance carrier if the carrier timely complies with the decision of the independent review organization.
(e)  Except as provided by Subsections (d), (f), and (m), a review of the medical necessity of a health care service provided under this chapter or Chapter 408 shall be conducted by an independent review organization under Chapter 4202, Insurance Code, in the same manner as reviews of utilization review decisions by health maintenance organizations.  It is a defense for the insurance carrier if the carrier timely complies with the decision of the independent review organization.
(e-1)  In performing a review of medical necessity under Subsection (d) or (e), the independent review organization shall consider the division's health care reimbursement policies and guidelines adopted under Section 413.011.  If the independent review organization's decision is contrary to the division's policies or guidelines adopted under Section 413.011, the independent review organization must indicate in the decision the specific basis for its divergence in the review of medical necessity.
(e-2)  An independent review organization that uses doctors to perform reviews of health care services provided under this title may only use doctors licensed to practice in this state.
(e-3)  Notwithstanding Subsections (d) and (e) of this section or Chapters 4201 and 4202, Insurance Code, a doctor, other than a dentist or a chiropractor, who performs a utilization review or an independent review of a health care service provided to an injured employee is subject to Section 408.0043.  A dentist who performs a utilization review or an independent review of a dental service provided to an injured employee is subject to Section 408.0044.  A chiropractor who performs a utilization review or an independent review of a chiropractic service provided to an injured employee is subject to Section 408.0045.
(f)  The commissioner by rule shall specify the appropriate dispute resolution process for disputes in which a claimant has paid for medical services and seeks reimbursement.
(g)  In performing a review of medical necessity under Subsection (d) or (e), an independent review organization may request that the commissioner order an examination by a designated doctor under Chapter 408.
(h)  The insurance carrier shall pay the cost of the review if the dispute arises in connection with:
(1)  a request for health care services that require preauthorization under Section 413.014 or commissioner rules under that section; or
(2)  a treatment plan under Section 413.011(g) or commissioner rules under that section.
(i)  Except as provided by Subsection (h), the cost of the review shall be paid by the nonprevailing party.
(j)  Notwithstanding Subsections (h) and (i), an employee may not be required to pay any portion of the cost of a review.
(k)  A party to a medical dispute that remains unresolved after a review of the medical service under this section is entitled to a hearing under Section 413.0311 or 413.0312, as applicable.
(k-1)  A party who has exhausted all administrative remedies described by Subsection (k) and who is aggrieved by a final decision of the division or the State Office of Administrative Hearings may seek judicial review of the decision.  Judicial review under this subsection shall be conducted in the manner provided for judicial review of a contested case under Subchapter G, Chapter 2001, Government Code, except that in the case of a medical fee dispute the party seeking judicial review under this section must file suit not later than the 45th day after the date on which the State Office of Administrative Hearings mailed the party the notification of the decision.  For purposes of this subsection, the mailing date is considered to be the fifth day after the date the decision was issued by the State Office of Administrative Hearings.
(k-2)  The division and the department are not considered to be parties to the medical dispute for purposes of Subsections (k) and (k-1).
(l)  Repealed by Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 1162, Sec. 37(1), eff. September 1, 2011.
(m)  The decision of an independent review organization under Subsection (d) is binding during the pendency of a dispute.
(n)  The commissioner by rule may prescribe an alternate dispute resolution process to resolve disputes regarding medical services costing less than the cost of a review of the medical necessity of a health care service by an independent review organization.  The cost of a review under the alternate dispute resolution process shall be paid by the nonprevailing party.
Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 269, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1993.  Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 76, Sec. 5.95(49), eff. Sept. 1, 1995;  Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 980, Sec. 1.43, eff. Sept. 1, 1995;  Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1456, Sec. 6.04, eff. June 17, 2001;  Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 980, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2003;  Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1323, Sec. 1, eff. June 21, 2003.
Amended by:
Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 265 (H.B. 7), Sec. 3.245, eff. September 1, 2005.
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 133 (H.B. 1003), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2007.
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1007 (H.B. 724), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2007.
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1218 (H.B. 2004), Sec. 6, eff. September 1, 2007.
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1330 (H.B. 4290), Sec. 18, eff. September 1, 2009.
Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 1066 (S.B. 809), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2011.
Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 1162 (H.B. 2605), Sec. 18, eff. September 1, 2011.
Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 1162 (H.B. 2605), Sec. 37(1), eff. September 1, 2011.
Acts 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1218 (S.B. 1742), Sec. 3.14, eff. September 1, 2019.