Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Treating Physician Choice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee split over restoring injured workers' right to choose their treating physician
Summary
Senate hearing on SB 295 drew emotional testimony from injured workers and labor groups urging restored doctor choice, while insurers and business groups warned the 2011 reforms improved system efficiency and reduced costs; extended questioning focused on NCCI estimates, mediation timelines and verification safeguards.
Senate Business, Labor and Economic Affairs on Monday heard hours of testimony for and against Senate Bill 295, which would restore an injured worker's right to designate their treating physician in workers' compensation claims.
Sponsor Senator Andrea Olsen said SB 295 "restore[s] every person's right as a worker to be able to choose their own doctor," framing the change as both a matter of patient autonomy and better health outcomes. Proponents told personal stories of delayed treatment and burdensome travel because insurers designated distant providers: Stacy Temple Saint John described a client for whom the insurer initially wanted a 500'mile round trip and said the practice had been used as a lever in disputes.
Labor, construction trades and the Montana AFL-CIO argued restoring choice improves continuity of care and expedites treatment, which proponents said helps injured workers return to work sooner. Injured workers who testified described multi-month delays and difficulty accessing specialists under insurer designation.
Opponents, including Montana State Fund, the Self Insurers Association and business groups, urged caution. Nick Mazanec and Peter Strauss recounted the post'2011 reforms (HB 334) that they credited with significant rate reductions, faster returns to work and a more efficient claims process. They cited NCCI estimates from 2011 attributing a portion of cost savings to the treating-physician designation and warned that restoring full employee choice risks reversing those gains. Strauss and other opponents said the designation rule helps ensure the treating provider can navigate workers' compensation documentation and make legally required determinations.
Committee questioning focused on empirical evidence and remedies. Senators asked for NCCI calculations, the number of current designation disputes, whether the Department of Labor could price changes, and how mediation and litigation timelines would resolve disagreements when a designated provider will not perform required claim-management tasks. Opponents noted designations are rare but argued their systemic effect is significant; proponents countered that changes in provider availability and practice make 2011 assumptions less applicable today.
Several witnesses urged built-in safeguards: SB 295 would allow insurers to verify that the designated person agrees to perform treating-physician responsibilities and could send disputes to mediation. The hearing closed with the sponsor pressing the committee to restore choice while opponents cautioned the committee about potential higher premiums and administrative disruption. No vote was taken; the committee will weigh amendments and fiscal analyses before acting.
