Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Medical Payment Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill to force disclosure of contracts behind reduced medical payments to injured-workers' providers
Summary
The Senate Labor Committee moved AB 10 48, a bill from Mr. Chen that would require payers to produce contracts explaining payment reductions to medical providers and limit contract requests to once per 365 days; supporters called it a narrow transparency fix while payer groups urged rejection, saying remedies already exist.
The Senate Labor and Public Employment and Retirement Committee voted to advance AB 10 48, a bill introduced by Mr. Chen, which would require that when a payer reduces a medical provider’s reimbursement for treating injured workers, the payer produce the contract that justifies the reduction.
Mr. Chen, the bill’s author, told the panel the measure “brings transparency to this process” and clarified it “does not change the reimbursement rates or create new payment obligation” but ensures providers can determine whether a reduction is valid. Dr. Basil Beshum, an orthopedic surgeon who treats injured workers, testified that the bill is “very narrow” and asked the committee to support a requirement that the contract be produced as the means to demonstrate justification.
Opponents including the California Coalition on Workers’ Compensation and APAN (American Association of Payers, Administrators, and Networks) urged the committee to reject the bill or amend it, saying the sponsors rely on limited anecdotes and that existing remedies such as liens and independent bill review are available. Jason Schmelzer of the Coalition said data do not show a systemic problem and warned the measure could impose new burdens on employers and networks. APAN’s Lisa Ann Hirt Forsyth cited state DWC data showing that only a small fraction of claims—about 3,958 challenges out of roughly 11 million bills in 2024—reach independent review, arguing the vast majority of claims process without incident.
Supporters countered that providers sometimes find their payments reduced without access to the contracts or documentation needed to evaluate the reduction. Dr. Beshum described an example in which a contract used to justify reductions had been expired for years and said the inability to obtain the contract can cost practices hundreds of thousands of dollars. Ryan Spencer, representing the California Orthopedic Association, said the sponsors had negotiated amendments, including a one-year window in which a produced contract remains valid to avoid repeated requests.
Senator Strickland moved the bill "do pass as amended" to the Senate Committee on Appropriations; the item was placed on call pending the return of all members. The committee’s recorded votes during the hearing showed support from the present members, with the bill ultimately reported out of committee on a 5–0 tally when votes were finalized.
What happens next: AB 10 48 was advanced to the Senate Committee on Appropriations for further consideration.
