On June 19, 1996, the Court of Appeals of Indiana handed State Farm yet another defeat in a court battle that has been ongoing since 1991 (see "State Farm Guilty of Discriminating against Chiropractors" in the October 21, 1994 issue of "DC").
In the case of appellate plaintiffs State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. and State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. vs. defendants Indiana Dept. of Insurance (and Indiana State Chiropractic Assoc. as an appellee), Judge Riley included these remarks in his 21-page opinion:
"We have no hesitation in concluding that the finding that State Farm paid chiropractic claims in homeowner and automobile policies at a significantly lower rate than it paid similar non-chiropractic claims is substantially supported by the evidence in the record. As the market conduct examination revealed and as the hearing officer and Commissioner found, State Farm was operating in violation of the Reimbursement Statute and in violation of the UC & DTPA (Unfair Competition and Deceptive Trade Practices Act).CONCLUSION:"The market conduct examination revealed that State Farm had no objective criteria for determining under what circumstances an outside review agency should be employed to review claims involving chiropractic services and expenses; that claims involving chiropractic services were sent to outside review organizations more frequently than claims for services performed by nonchiropractors; and that State Farm failed to reimburse chiropractors on an equal basis with other health care providers.
"The market conduct examination revealed that State Farm rarely reimbursed a non-chiropractic claim in an amount less than the billed charges, while frequently reducing the amount reimbursed for chiropractic claims. Specifically, the examination revealed that on a pure dollar basis, State Farm only paid 41.4% of the billed chiropractic charges on claims that had been independently reviewed. State Farm argues that it paid chiropractors five times more than other providers. It is likely that the use of hands-on chiropractic treatment is more expensive than another provider's treatment plan, and therefore this "net payment" argument adds little to the "equal reimbursement" issue. The evidence supports the finding that State Farm violated the Reimbursement Statute by failing to reimburse chiropractors on an equal basis with other health care providers. State Farm must adopt standards and claims management criteria that are applied uniformly to all medical providers.
"IDI (Indiana Department of Insurance) acted properly when it ordered State Farm to implement practices to cure the irregularities which were revealed during the market conduct examination and subsequent investigatory hearing conducted pursuant to the Examination Statute. Further, IDI's interpretation and application of the Reimbursement Statute was correct and the Commissioner's Final Order is supported by substantial evidence in the record."The saga of ISCA's legal battle with insurance giant State Farm began on January 11, 1991, when ISCA filed a complaint with the Indiana Department of Insurance (IDI) against State Farm claiming that State Farm was discriminating against chiropractors in the payment of claims. On September 20, 1994, upon judicial review, the court found that:
Editor's note: For more information, please contact Rick Batesky, ISCA's in-house legal counsel at (317) 684-3020.
When sports chiropractors first appeared at the Olympic Games in the 1980s, it was alongside individual athletes who had experienced the benefits of chiropractic care in their training and recovery processes at home. Fast forward to Paris 2024, where chiropractic care was available in the polyclinic for all athletes, and the attitude has now evolved to recognize that “every athlete deserves access to sports chiropractic."
It is estimated that 61% of patients with CTS avoid taking surgical options due to postoperative complications and costly surgical procedures. Chiropractic care offers a comprehensive and effective treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome, addressing the condition from multiple angles. Recent studies also have unveiled a game-changing adjunct to chiropractic treatments for CTS: nerve flossing.
Some doctors thrive in a personality-based clinic and have a loyal following no matter what services or equipment they offer, but for most chiropractic offices who are trying to grow and expand, new equipment purchases help us stay relevant and continue to service our client base in the best, most up-to-date manner possible. So, regarding equipment purchasing: should you lease, get a bank loan, or pay cash?
