Title: Lobbyist, California Advocates Inc.
Resume: Broyles was a lobbyist with the California Chamber of Commerce for 16 years, and prior to that she worked for California Senator Tom McClintock. She also worked in the private sector for Distribution Management Systems. Broyles worked in Washington at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities Defense Budget Project and was a staffer for U.S. Representative William Gooding (R-Pennsylvania) and Senator Trent Lott (R-Mississippi).
Schools: She attended Loyola Marymount University and the University of San Diego, majoring in political science and international economics.
Designations and Certifications: Broyles is a member of the Society for Human Resource Management and SHRM, High-Tech Net.
Favorite Book: Any book by Robert Heinlein
Favorite Quote: “There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.” (Robert Heinlein, The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress)

Broyles is arguably the most prominent figure at the Capitol, representing counties and local governments on workers’ comp issues as the lobbyist for the California Association of Joint Powers Authorities. She has been particularly outspoken about the need to keep insurance costs down for local governments as they struggle with their budgets. Broyles has testified on bills related to utilization review, compound medications, the electronic adjudication management system, and benefits from public safety officers. The latter is a major cost driver for local governments, but Broyles recognizes the need to take care of police officers and firefighters, and frequently works with the other side to achieve compromises.

What are the top three issues in California workers’ comp today?  
The first issue is continuing to find ways to make the system work smoothly. If you’re talking legislatively, there are a number of things that could be done. One is liens, which is a really big issue. Something needs to be done to reduce the liens backlog. That is pretty much restricted to Southern California, but it’s slowing down operations. I think the other issues are there needs to be some kind of discussion among stakeholders about assessments to fund the workers’ comp system. I don’t think employers’ agreements to unlimited assessments for each is a good idea. Some controls need to be put on that. From our members’ view, there is much to be done to address and stop workers’ comp fraud wherever it occurs.

Are we headed for a hard market, and if so, when will it come? How long should we expect it to last? What are the repercussions?  
I think it’s on the doorstep at this point. This is evidenced by the fact that you’re getting recommendations for 30% increases in pure premium rates. The hard market is not unexpected, but certainly in times of economic turmoil, there is always an upsurge in workers’ comp claim activity. There is a similar rise in state disability insurance claims. People look for other ways to ensure they have income. People may have legitimate claims that they don’t claim until now, when they may be laid off. The repercussions aren’t as hard, but for other employers there couldn’t be a worse time to hit them with a [rate] increase.

It’s no longer a question of if but when we enter a hard market, so what is in the future of State Compensation Insurance Fund? Will its market share climb back to historic levels? Do you think that further reforms are needed for the governance of State Fund, for example, does it make sense to have Senate confirmation for board members?  
It’s a unique animal: not quite government, not quite private. [As for whether its market share increases to historic levels,] I hope not, that’s not what it was meant to be. We hope that our workers’ comp system in California is competitive enough to allow for a wide variety of insurance coverage for employers. State Fund is supposed to be the insurance carrier of last resort, when you can’t find others. It’s not supposed to be the huge pool that it turned into. Even now it could stand to shrink.

Are medical provider networks a help or a hindrance? How should they be improved?  
For public employers, they’re very helpful.

How should utilization review be improved?  
Good utilization review should be an effective cost containment measure. We should be careful that utilization review doesn’t become a bottleneck for access to care for employees. It’s been effective in cost containment to make sure you’re not overpaying for medical services or treatment.

What needs to be done to improve return-to-work?  
I fully endorse return-to-work. It’s good for the injured workers, it’s good for employers. There needs to be some alternatives. For employers, there isn’t a place for them to return to (especially to jobs with strenuous activity). Maybe they should look outside the box. Larger corporations were allowing employees to volunteer and letting them count that as a job, as long as it was a bona fide charitable organization. Obviously, that won’t work for every situation, but they should look at that thought process. They can keep someone engaged in the community while still trying to relieve the employer of undue financial obligations if they don’t have a job for them to return to.

What do you see, other than medical, as the next big cost driver?  
I don’t think you can say anything other than medical will be the next big cost driver.

Is it realistic to deal for more cost-cutting reforms in exchange for increasing PD benefits?  
The question is always from both sides of the table. Will whatever is being proposed really pay for what is being asked for? In every situation you need more than one set of “eyes” from both sides looking at it. I’m unhappy with what has happened in the last few years: A few people get together in a small room and affect every employer and employee in the state. It needs to be a more open process.

Where do you see applicant attorneys focusing litigation in the future?  
Anyplace they can. I think the trend has been and continues to be what is considered a compensable injury. They’ve got to go in and make a case of what should be apportioned and who should apportion what. They pursue cases about medical discrimination… What we’re seeing in terms of trends in workers’ comp claims and things being inserted into claims… we’re seeing sleep disorders and sexual dysfunction in every claim. Those are the trends we are seeing.

Now that the federal health care bill has become law, what impact, if any, do you see that having on workers’ compensation and do you have any concerns?  
Yes, it’s going to have an impact, but what it will be we’re not sure. It’s too early to say.

What is the effect of more than $1 billion in payroll being absorbed by the self-insured groups?  
That will reduce profits for insurance companies, but what you’re required to supply must be equal to or better than what you were supplying with an insurance carrier. [When you’re self-insured,] you can have better results if you have hands-on ability by the employer. The employee then knows that someone is looking at the claim and trying to get them back to work as quickly as possible. I can’t see why moving to self-insurance will do anything other than improve [results.]

With the budget constraints, is there any appetite for major reform or simply piecemeal changes to specific challenges?  
I think there’s always appetite, it’s whether or not it is considered major [depends on] what piece of the stakeholder community wants something. Major reform for unions is permanent disability benefits increases. Major reform for employers is saying that old liens can’t come back to life when they’ve been paid off. [It’s] finding a way to bridge savings into a benefit increase … [The] state is permissibly uninsured. The state itself pays all of its workers’ comp claims out of the bottom line. If it gives a whole bunch of disability awards to corrections officers, it pays for that right from its bottom line. For local entities, we have reserves and plan for these things. Budget constraints are an interesting dynamic. No one has any money any more. If there’s going to be a major reform, there will be a lot of scrutiny by employers. With regards to the budget constraints question, it will need to be clear [what the results of trade-offs will be.] We really need to know what we’re getting before you get a lot of employer groups to buy into it.

Governor Schwarzenegger signed bills allowing predesignation to continue (SB 186), tweaking utilization review (AB 361), and limiting the denial of benefits (AB 1093).  
There are also other bills that increase benefits moving through the Legislature, that may or may not get signed (the governor has shown a willingness to do both). What impact could these, if any, have on costs? Bills that treat systems usually take three to five years to show their impact on claims and claims behavior. I don’t know if I have the information to know if they have influenced costs either way. We’re concerned that the governor will sign more presumptions for police and firefighters. Everyone believes that they are hardworking employees, but budgets are so strapped that no expansion of benefits is reasonable.