5. Plain Language Analysis. The proposed rule discloses the discretion the Department may exercise in enforcement actions that are undertaken to obtain a small business's compliance with the Department's rules and guidelines. The proposed rule also specifies when such discretion is not allowed.
An informational Note is included under section
Comm 200.01, for alerting readers that the Department has additional discretion – beyond what is specified in this chapter – for enforcing rules to gain compliance by any business, regardless of size. The Department exercises this additional discretion for determining such things as where or when Department staff should perform enforcement inspections.
Similarly, a subsequent informational Note under section
Comm 200.10 (1) explains that the Department also has additional, specific discretion to extend a compliance deadline for any entity, regardless of size – after the decision to perform an inspection is made.
Under section
Comm 200.10 (3), the Department's responsibility for exercising the discretion in this chapter will not begin until after the corresponding small business entity informs the Department that the entity meets the definition of small business under section
Comm 200.03 (2), and that the violation circumstances in section
Comm 200.10 (2) have not occurred.
6. Summary of, and Comparison With, Existing or Proposed Federal Regulations. The Department is not aware of any existing or proposed federal regulation that addresses the activities to be regulated by this rule.
7. Comparison With Rules in Adjacent States. The Department is not aware of any similar rule in an adjacent State.
8. Summary of Factual Data and Analytical Methodologies. The data and methodology that was used to develop the proposed rules consisted of reviewing (1) the requirements in section
895.59 of the Statutes, (2) the Department's current practices for exercising enforcement discretion, and (3) the corresponding rules that other State agencies have developed in response to section
895.59 of the Statutes.
9. Analysis and Supporting Documents Used to Determine Effect on Small Business or in Preparation of an Economic Impact Report. The primary document that was used to determine the effect of the proposed rules on small business was
2003 Wisconsin Act 145. This Act addressed numerous aspects of administrative rule making that relate to small business, and required the Department and other State agencies to each promulgate a rule which discloses the discretion that may be exercised when enforcing rules and guidelines against a small business. Neither the Act nor the proposed rule imposes constraints on small business. An economic impact report was not required.
10. Effect on Small Business. The proposed rule should have a positive effect on small business.
11. Agency Contact Information. Jim Quast, Wisconsin Department of Commerce, Bureau of Program Development, P.O. Box 2689, Madison, WI, 53707-2689; telephone (608) 266-9292; e-mail
jquast@commerce.state.wi.us.
12. Place Where Comments Are to Be Submitted, and Deadline for Submission. Comments on the proposed rules may be submitted by e-mail to
srockweiler@commerce.state.wi.us, no later than February 20, 2007. If e-mail submittal is not possible, written comments may be mailed, by the same date, to Sam Rockweiler, Department of Commerce, Division of Environmental and Regulatory Services, P.O. Box 14427, Madison, WI 53708-0427.
The proposed rules and an analysis of the rules are available on the Internet, by entering “Comm 200" in the search engine at the following Web site:
http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov. Paper copies may be obtained without cost from Roberta Ward at the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Program Development, P.O. Box 2689, Madison, WI, 53701-2689; telephone (608) 266-8741; e-mail
rward@commerce.state.wi.us; or (608) 264-8777 (TTY). Copies will also be available at the public hearing.
Environmental Analysis
Notice is hereby given that the Department has considered the environmental impact of the proposed rules. In accordance with chapter Comm 1, the proposed rules are a Type III action. A Type III action normally does not have the potential to cause significant environmental effects and normally does not involve unresolved conflicts in the use of available resources. The Department has reviewed these rules and finds no reason to believe that any unusual conditions exist. At this time, the Department has issued this notice to serve as a finding of no significant impact.
Fiscal Estimate
The proposed rules will not create any significant additional workload costs for the Department or its local agents, and will not result in any significant changes to the revenues collected by the Department or its local agents.
The enforcement discretion that is the subject of the proposed rules will not have a direct, substantive fiscal effect on the private sector.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. Types of small businesses that will be affected by the rules.
The rules may affect any business that must comply with the administrative codes enforced by any of the Divisions within the Department.
2. Reporting, bookkeeping and other procedures required for compliance with the rules.
There are no reporting, bookkeeping or other procedures required for compliance with the rules.
3. Types of professional skills necessary for compliance with the rules.
There are no types of professional skills necessary for compliance with the rules.
4. Rules have a significant economic impact on small businesses.
No. Rules not submitted to Small Business Regulatory Review Board
The small business regulatory coordinator for the Department of Commerce is Carol Dunn, who may be contacted at telephone (608) 267-0297, or by e-mail at
carol.dunn@wisconsin.gov.
Notice of Hearing
Insurance
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the authority granted under s.
601.41 (3), Stats., and the procedures set forth in under s.
227.18, Stats., OCI will hold a public hearing to consider the adoption of the attached proposed rulemaking order affecting section
Ins 17.25 (12m) and
17.28 (6s), Wis. Adm. Code, relating to Peer Review Surcharge Rates.
Hearing Information
Date: February 19, 2007
Time: 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be reached
Place: OCI, Room 227, 125 South Webster St 2nd Floor, Madison, WI
Written comments can be mailed to:
Theresa Wedekind
OCI Rule Comment for Rule Ins 1725
Office of the Commissioner of Insurance
PO Box 7873
Madison WI 53707-7873
Written comments can be hand delivered to:
Theresa Wedekind
OCI Rule Comment for Rule Ins 1725
Office of the Commissioner of Insurance
125 South Webster St – 2nd Floor
Madison WI 53702
Comments can be emailed to:
Theresa Wedekind
The deadline for submitting comments is 4:00 p.m. on the 8th day after the date for the hearing stated in this Notice of Hearing.
Analysis Prepared by the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance (OCI)
3. Explanation of the OCI's authority to promulgate the proposed rule under these statutes:The commissioner of insurance, with the approval of the board of governors (board) of the injured patients and families compensation fund (fund) and the Wisconsin health care liability insurance plan (plan), is required to establish by administrative rule the surcharge rates which may be applied to a health care provider's annual fund fee, and provider annual premium if participating in the plan, based upon recommendations from the fund's peer review council.
4. Related Statutes or rules:None.
5. The plain language analysis and summary of the proposed rule:This rule establishes the surcharge rates which a health care provider may be required to pay to the fund or the plan. These surcharge rates are based upon the number of claims paid on behalf of a health care provider in addition to the dollar amount of those claims. Paid claim reports are reviewed by the fund's peer review council and if deemed appropriate the council makes a recommendation to the board of governors to assess a surcharge to the health care provider for their coverage under the fund. The board approved these surcharge rates at its meeting on December 14, 2005, based on the recommendation of the board's actuarial and underwriting committee and reports of the fund's actuaries.
6. Summary of and preliminary comparison with any existing or proposed federal regulation that is intended to address the activities to be regulated by the proposed rule: To the fund board's and OCI's knowledge there is no existing or proposed federal regulation that is intended to address patient compensation fund rates, administration or peer review activities.
7. Comparison of similar rules in adjacent states as found by OCI: To the fund board's and OCI's knowledge there are no similar rules in the adjacent states to compare this rule to as none of these states have a patients compensation fund peer review council created by statute where rates are directed to be established yearly by rule as is true in Wisconsin.
8. A summary of the factual data and analytical methodologies that OCI used in support of the proposed rule and how any related findings support the regulatory approach chosen for the proposed rule: None. This rule establishes peer review surcharge rates pursuant to the requirements of the above-noted Wisconsin statutes.
9. Any analysis and supporting documentation that OCI used in support of OCI's determination of the rule's effect on small businesses under s.
227.114: The effect to small business would be minimal. The surcharge is applied only to individual health care providers. The only effect to small business would be if a surcharged was imposed upon a health care provider who was employed by a small business which paid medical malpractice insurance premium on the provider's behalf.
10. If these changes may have a significant fiscal effect on the private sector, the anticipated costs that will be incurred by private sector in complying with the rule: The effect to small business would be minimal as stated in number 9 above.
11. A description of the Effect on Small Business: This rule will have very little effect on small businesses.
12. Agency contact person: A copy of the full text of the proposed rule changes, analysis and fiscal estimate may be obtained from the WEB sites at:
http://oci.wi.gov/ocirules.htm or by contacting Inger Williams, OCI Services Section, at:
Phone: (608) 264-8110
Address: 125 South Webster St – 2nd Floor Madison WI 53702
Mail: PO Box 7873, Madison WI 53707-787313.
Place where comments are to be submitted and deadline for submission: The deadline for submitting comments is 4:30 p.m. on February 27, 2006.
Mailing address:
Theresa Wedekind
OCI Rule Comment for Rule Ins 17287 PCF fee rule
Office of the Commissioner of Insurance
PO Box 7873
Madison WI 53707-7873
Street address:
Theresa Wedekind
OCI Rule Comment for Rule Ins 17287 PCF fee rule
Office of the Commissioner of Insurance
125 South Webster St – 2nd Floor
Madison WI 53702
Private Sector Fiscal Analysis
Rule Ins 17.25 (12m) and 17.28 (6s) peer review surcharge rates relating to annual injured patients and families compensation fund fees and Wisconsin health care liability insurance plan premium rates.
The changes in the surcharge rates promulgated by this rule do not result in a significant fiscal effect on the private sector. The cost of fund coverage is a very small portion of the expenses incurred by health care providers. The plan insures a relatively small number of health care provider, approximately 300, and therefore the potential for any significant impact is very minimal.
These surcharge rates have not been revised since the implementation of the peer review surcharge in 1980. Although a health care provider may pass any increase resulting from a surcharge on to its patients, there will not be a significant fiscal effect on the private sector as a result of this proposed rule.
Fiscal Estimate
The Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund (IPFCF or Fund) is a segregated fund. Annual Fund fees are established to become effective each July 1 based on actuarial estimates of the Fund's needs for payment of medical malpractice claims. Health care providers may have a surcharge levied on their fund fees based upon claims experience, pursuant to a recommendation by the Fund's Peer Review Council. The proposed revisions to the surcharge tables were approved by the Fund's Board of Governors at its December 14, 2005 meeting.
