Search for other papers by Jennifer Christian in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by David Siktberg in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Christopher R. Brigham in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Charles N. Brooks in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
Independent medical evaluations (IMEs) are widely—and often, inappropriately—used in the claims management process. An IME includes a review of all pertinent medical records; an interview (history) and physical examination; a review of laboratory results and test results; and an edited and signed written report. The primary value of an IME is the report, because a credible medical opinion obtained at the right time can provide information necessary to initiate appropriate action in claims management, both for insurers, who will have a solid basis for acceptance or denial of a claim, and for claimant attorneys, who may use the evaluation to gain acceptance of a claim. A list of common problems in IMEs shows issues about which evaluators should be particularly careful, including questions of use, timing, choice of examiner, adequacy of questions asked and information received, expectations not defined, and framing the evaluation in a negative manner. From a client perspective, IMEs can be improved in several ways, and physicians should understand these opportunities for improving the quality, effectiveness, and value of evaluations. Because referral letters sometimes fail to ask detailed, focused, and probing questions, examiners who have any doubt about the conduct or objectives of the IME should contact the referral source. Detailed checklists and specifications can help ensure completeness and compliance. The article includes a box with definitions of frequently used IME terminology.
- Abstract
- Need
- Challenges
- Opportunities for Improvement
- Determine If and When a Medical Opinion is Needed
- Select the Appropriate Examiner
- Prepare an Effective Referral Letter
- Provide Adequate Information
- Advise the Claimant
- Define Expectations of the Evaluator
- Assess the Quality of the Report
- Action Steps
- References
-
1.
Barth, Peter S. Resolving Occupational Disease Claims—The Use of Medical Panels. Cambridge, Mass: Workers’ Compensation Research Institute, 1985 (WC-85-1X and WC-1-85).
-
2.
Brigham CR. Perfecting the IME Process. The Guides Newsletter, September/October, 2000: 6–7
-
3.
Brigham CR, Babitsky S, Mangraviti JJ. The Independent Medical Examination Report: A Step-by-Step Guide with Models. Falmouth, Mass: SEAK, Inc, 1996.
-
4.
Brigham CR. The Comprehensive IME System. Falmouth, Mass: SEAK, Inc, 1998.
-
5.
Canadian Medical Association. The physician's role in helping patients return to work after an illness or injury (www.cma.ca/inside/policybase1997/3-1.htm). Ottawa: Canadian Medical Association, 1997.
-
6.
Eccleston SE, Yeager CM. Managed Care and Medical Cost Containment in Workers’ Compensation—A National Inventory, 1997-1998. Cambridge, Mass: Workers' Compensation Research Institute, 1997 (WC-97-6).
-
7.
Grace TG. Independent Medical Evaluations. Rosemont, Ill: American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, 2001.
-
8.
Harris JS, Brigham CR. Independent medical examinations. In: Management of Common Health Problems and Functional Recovery in Workers: The ACOEM Occupational Medicine Practice Guidelines. Harris JS et al (eds). Beverly Farms, Mass: OEM Health Information, 1997.
-
9.
Pease SR. Performance Indicators for Permanent Disability—Low Back Injuries in Texas. Cambridge, Mass: Workers’ Compensation Research Institute, 1988 (WC-88-4).
-
10.
Rondinelli R, Katz R. Impairment Rating and Disability Evaluation. Philadelphia, Penn: W. B. Saunders, 2000.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 896 | 896 | 84 |
| Full Text Views | 21 | 21 | 0 |
| PDF Downloads | 0 | 0 | 0 |
