Skip to content
S4641Senate2019-2020 SessionSame asA4236

Doctor's Opinion Gets Priority

Official title

“Provides factors and requirements to be considered and followed when health care practitioner's diagnosis differs from treating health care practitioner as to disability”

Sponsor Roxanne J. PersaudSD-19+1 co-sponsorAffects Health
Status
Vetoed
Impact
4/10
Low
Outcome
Vetoed

Bill progress

Vetoed

What's happening

This bill requires that, when health care practitioners disagree on a disability determination, the treating practitioner's opinion is generally given priority, with specific factors considered.

Why it matters

  1. Strengthens patient-practitioner relationships. by ensuring that the treating health care provider—who typically knows the patient best—has their opinion prioritized in disability determinations, potentially leading to more accurate and personalized decisions.

  2. Reduces the risk of inappropriate benefit denials or delays. by limiting the influence of a single state-appointed or consulting practitioner who may have only limited or brief contact with the applicant.

  3. Introduces clear, objective criteria. (such as treatment length, frequency, supporting evidence, and specialty) for evaluating conflicting medical opinions, aiming to make the process more transparent and fair for applicants.

  4. May increase accountability and consistency in social services decisions. by standardizing how disagreements between health professionals are resolved, which could help applicants better understand and potentially appeal disability rulings.

The daily · weekday mornings

Albany, before your first meeting.

Every bill that moved yesterday, summarized in a sentence and ranked by impact. The Albany Scorecard follows on Sundays.

Free. Unsubscribe in one click. Want alerts on specific bills? Create an account.

Who cares

Headline styles

Doctor's Opinion Gets Priority

Plain English, a few words. Used as the page title.

Sponsors

Primary sponsor
Roxanne J. Persaud

Senator · Senate District 19

Chair, Social Services

1 Co-sponsor

History

  1. Vetoed memo.179
  2. Delivered to governor
  3. Returned to senate
  4. Passed assembly
  5. Ordered to third reading cal.115
  6. Substituted for A4236
  7. Referred to social services
  8. Delivered to assembly
  9. Passed senateVote 50–11
  10. Advanced to third reading
  11. 2nd report cal.
  12. 1st report cal.440
Show 1 earlier action
  1. Referred to social services

Companion bill

The same bill in the other chamber. A bill becomes law when one version passes both houses and the governor signs it, so either number can carry it.

A4236Assembly

Prioritize Treating Doctor’s Opinion

Assembly Floor Calendar · Sponsor Andrew Hevesi

Impact 4 · Low0% to pass

Full text

1 pageUnderlined is new[Struck] is removedOfficial text on nysenate.gov ↗

STATE OF NEW YORK

4641

2019-2020 Regular Sessions

IN SENATE

March 19, 2019

Introduced by Sen. PERSAUD -- read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to the Committee on Social Services

AN ACT to amend the social services law, in relation to establishing factors to be considered when a health care practitioner upon examination has a different opinion from an applicant's treating health care practitioner's opinion as to an applicant's disability

The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:

Section 1. Section 332-b of the social services law is amended by adding a new subdivision 4-b to read as follows:

4-b. In the event the practitioner to whom the individual is referred pursuant to subdivision four or paragraph (b) of subdivision two of this section issues an opinion that differs from the applicant's treating health care practitioner's opinion, the applicant's treating health care practitioner's opinion is generally controlling, subject to, but not limited to, the following factors:

(a) the length and frequency of the treatment provided,

(b) consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole,

(c) the degree to which the opinion is supported by concrete evidence, and

(d) the practitioner's specialty.

§ 2. This act shall take effect on the ninetieth day after it shall have become a law.

EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets

[ ] is old law to be omitted.

LBD01067-01-9

Reflowed for reading: line numbers and page breaks removed. Cite the official text.

Sponsor's memo

Title of bill

An act to amend the social services law, in relation to establishing factors to be considered when a health care practitioner upon examination has a different opinion from an applicant's treating health care practitioner's opinion as to an applicant's disability

Purpose or general idea of bill

To ensure that the opinions and determinations of a public assistance applicant's treating health care practitioner are given sufficient weight when making disability determinations.

Summary of specific provisions

Section 1 amends subdivision 4 of section 332-b of the social services law, by adding a new subdivision 4-b.

Section 2 is the effective date.

Existing law

Currently it is within the evaluating practitioner's discretion what, if any, weight is given to the treating health care practitioner's opinion.

Justification

If an individual applying for public assistance has work limitations, disabilities, or health issues which have been identified by their treating health care practitioner, their diagnosis and recommendations should be considered to be accurate, in the absence of any contradictory findings. As the current law is written, there is little weight given to the treating health care practitioner's opinion, and if not supplied in a very timely fashion, is not even considered in making a determination on work limitations.

The social services appointed examining practitioner only sees the applicant for one short assessment, which is not always sufficient in exploring many complicated issues related to work limitations. If the applicant's treating health care practitioner has been following him or her for a long period of time, they most likely have established enough of a relationship with their patient which would allow for the discovery of hidden disabilities that the examiner may never find. It is for this reason that, under current law, if the examiner makes any findings contrary to the treating health care practitioner's diagnosis, the reasons for the differing diagnosis should have to be defended and explicitly stated in writing.

Prior legislative history

2017-2018: S4195 2015-2016: S1840 2013-2014: S428 2011-2012: S1326 2009-2010: 55547 2007-2008: S1509

Fiscal implications

None.

Effective date

This act shall take effect on the ninetieth day after it shall have become a law.

Summaries, headlines and scores are AI-generated from the official bill text. How we score bills. Source: NYS Open Legislation.