• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Massage Practice Builder

You Know How to Massage, Now Learn How to get Clients

  • Home
  • 5 Steps to Success
    • Websites
    • Getting Referrals
    • Rebooking Massage Clients
    • Ethics
    • Self Care
  • Insurance Billing Manual
    • Will Billing Insurance Help Make Your Massage Business More Profitable?
    • History of Massage in Healthcare
    • FAQ’s about getting massage covered by health insurance
    • Massage Insurance Billing – Forms and Support
    • Massage Insurance Billing Resources
    • CPT codes for massage therapists (2019)
  • Business Basics
  • COVID-19
  • Health Care Integration
    • What is Medical Massage?
    • Evidence Informed Practice
    • If we are not at the table, we are on the menu.
You are here: Home / Massage Insurance Billing / Issues in Complementary and Alternative Medicine

Issues in Complementary and Alternative Medicine

June 29, 2015 By Julie Onofrio Leave a Comment

Issues in Coverage for Complementary and Alternative MedicineFrom the Report of the Clinician Workgroup on the Integration of Complementary and Alternative Medicine January 2000.  Washington State

Report of the Clinician Workgroup on the Integration of CAM    Page 39
Factual Chronology Of Legal Events Related to RCW 48.43.045
April 1993    The Washington State legislature adopted the “every
category of provider” mandate as part of the 1993 Health Care Reform Act.

April 1995    The Washington State legislature adopted the every
category of provider mandate in RCW 48.43.045. The statute was to be effective January 1, 1996.

August 1995    The Insurance Commissioner sent a letter dated August
18, 1995 to the CEO’s of all disability insurers, HCSC’s and HMO’s requesting the submission by September 15, 1995, of a time line and work plan for achieving an adequate network of every category of provider.

September 1995    Carriers submitted plans as requested by the Insurance Commissioner.

December 19, 1995    The Insurance Commissioner issued Bulletin 95-9 setting forth the Commissioner’s interpretation of RCW 48.43.045. None of the carriers’ previously submitted plans would satisfy that interpretation.

January 8, 1996    Carriers filed a lawsuit in Thurston County Superior Court, sub nom Blue Cross of Washington and Alaska v. Semi, to have a court decide the correct interpretation of RCW 48.43.045.

April 8, 1996    Superior Court dismissed lawsuit due to carriers lack of exhaustion of their administrative remedies.
May 21, 1996    Carriers filed a Petition for a Declaratory Order to have the Insurance Commissioner decide the correct interpretation of RCW 48.43.045.
August 21, 1996    The Insurance Commissioner issues the Declaratory Order requested by the carriers.

August 1996    Carriers sue the Insurance Commissioner in Thurston County Superior Court, asking the court to reverse the Declaratory Order and stay all enforcement of it.

Page 40    Report of the Clinician Work group on the integration of CAM

September 1996    Carriers sue the Insurance Commissioner in Federal (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) preempts state implementation of RCW 48.43.045 as to employer plans.

September, 1996    Superior Court orders enforcement of Declaratory Order stayed until the court can decide whether the Commissioner interpreted RCW 48.43.045 correctly.

December 11, 1996    Insurance Commissioner convenes carriers and provider groups for discussion regarding RCW 48.43.045.
January 3, 1997    Insurance Commissioner facilitates provider discussions regarding provisions of RCW 48.43.045.
January 6, 1997    Insurance Commissioner facilitates discussions between the carriers and providers regarding RCW 48.43.045. Providers present proposals for implementation.
January 23, 1997    Insurance Commissioner facilitates discussions between carriers and providers regarding RCW 48.43.045. Providers deliver further proposals for implementation.

February 6, 1997    Commissioner reviews measures presented by the carriers for implementation of RCW 48.43.045. Office of the Insurance Commissioner prepares plan matrix of currently covered benefits for alternative providers.

April-May 1997    Commissioner prepares for a facilitated meeting with providers and carriers to discuss clinical aspects of alternative therapies in health plans.

May 2, 1997    Federal District Court rules that ERISA preempts state implementation of RCW 48.43.045.
May 9, 1997    Insurance Commissioner files a motion in Federal District Court to clarify whet.er the court’s May 2nd ruling applies to non-ERISA governed health plans.

May 30, 1997    Insurance Commissioner files an appeal with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals of the May 2, 1997 ruling that preempts RCW 48.43.045 from ERISA plans.

Report of the Clinician Workgroup on the Integration of CAM    Page 41
May 30, 1997    Insurance Commissioner supports a facilitated meeting of health plan medical director’s and representatives of alternative provider professions discussing clinical aspects of alternative therapies in health plans.
July 23, 1997    Federal district court denies the Commissioner’s motion to clarify the ruling.

July 30, 1997    Insurance Commissioner refiles the appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

September 29, 1997    Washington state brief filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Amicus briefs filed in support of the position of the Office of the Insurance Commissioner by U.S. Department of Labor, National Association of Insurance Commissioners and provider groups.

May 7, 1998    Oral Argument in 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

June 18, 1998    9th Circuit Court of Appeals reverses the lower court and directs summary judgement be entered in favor of the state.

July 3, 1998    Plaintiffs petition the 9th Circuit for a re-hearing on it’s June 18, decision.

August 24, 1998    Ninth Circuit denies the plaintiffs petition for are-hearing, and rejects the plaintiffs state law arguments under 48.47.005-030, in addition to the ERISA claims rejected in it’s June 18 decision.
September 17, 1998    Plaintiffs notify Thurston County Superior Court they will file a “petition for Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court” from the decision of the Ninth Circuit.
November, 1998    Plaintiffs filed Writ of Certiorari with the US Supreme Court to review the lower court’s decision.
December 20, 1998    OIC filed a brief in response to the Plaintiffs petition in the US Supreme Court.

January 1999    US Supreme Court denies Plaintiffs petition for Writ of
Certiorari, leaving the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to stand.

See Full PDF of the Report:  ICCAM1 ,  ICCAM2,  ICCAM3, ICCAM4, ICCAM5timeline, ,ICCAM6llog

Filed Under: Massage Insurance Billing

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • Pinterest
  • RSS
  • Twitter

Free Newsletter! Sign up Now! Receive the Back issues too!

Subscribe

* indicates required

Solo Build It!

Massage Insurance Billing Manual

Learn to Bill Insurance for Massage Therapy

Recent Posts

  • Informed Consent
  • Liability Insurance or Professional Association?
  • Take Back Your Facebook Newsfeed with 5 Easy Tips!
  • Doing what it takes
  • Start a Pregnancy Massage Business
  • Lessons from COVID-19
  • Massage therapists as healthcare providers
  • Massage Client Relationships
  • If we are not at the table, we are on the menu.
  • Who is who in massage associations
  • COVID-19 Guidelines for Back to Work
  • Wearing Facemasks
  • Cultural Competence Classes
  • It is what it is…
  • When should YOU reopen your massage business?
  • Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Policies
  • Sitemap

Copyright 2002 - © 2021 Massage Practice Builder, Julie Onofrio, LMT, Pine Woods Publishing LLC

This site uses cookies: Find out more.