this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2024
300 points (97.5% liked)

News

23275 readers
3549 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A new Biden administration rule released Wednesday aims to streamline the prior authorization process used by insurers to approve medical procedures and treatments.

Prior authorization is a common tool used by insurers but much maligned by doctors and patients, who say it’s often used to deny doctor-recommended care.

Under the final rule from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, health insurers participating in Medicare Advantage, Medicaid or the ObamaCare exchanges will need to respond to expedited prior authorization requests within 72 hours, and standard requests within seven calendar days.

The rule requires all impacted payers to include a specific reason for denying a prior authorization request. They will also be required to publicly report prior authorization metrics.

top 28 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 114 points 10 months ago (2 children)

the madness that is US “healthcare” never ceases to amaze me.

Know what happens when a doctor recommends me a treatment? I get that treatment.

I don’t have to hope an insurance company will “approve” of me getting that treatment. I don’t have to worry about paying for it.

Anyone still defending this system needs psychological help. Which would be denied by the insurance company. And cost 10000s out of pocket

[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 51 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It gets better. So many times Dr's will have to start with treatments they know won't work because otherwise insurance will just decline it all together.

[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 32 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The funny part is that this the ends up costing the insurance companies more. Nose removed, face spited.

[–] Xanis@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

It may cost more for that individual, which is likely additive. What's multiplicative is the number of people who don't or can't jump through the hoops and just move on. Having a tough time getting out of a subscription service? Insurance basically did it first.

[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 4 points 9 months ago

Agreed, they play the numbers game but at the cost of human suffering. All the cases where it costs them more though is just illustrative of the stupidity of it and helps show that there is room for legislation to curb this.

[–] Witchfire@lemmy.world 16 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Anyone still defending this system needs psychological help. Which would be denied by the insurance company. And cost 10000s out of pocket

Approximately half the country supports it because it hurts people they don't like, and they're about to elect a literal dictator. Please send help

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 54 points 10 months ago

Why are we letting the insurance companies make decisions like doctors in the first place again again?

[–] The_Picard_Maneuver@startrek.website 26 points 10 months ago (2 children)

This is a good step in the right direction, but I'd like to see it applied to commercial plans as well. Prior authorization is everything they're saying it is and worse.

[–] rtfm_modular@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago

It’s the difference between single-payer systems run by the government and private, for-profit commercial plans. I’m happy to see this carried out on an executive level since an actual law regulating private insurance would be a shit storm in congress. Remove the profit motive from insurers and the shift quickly moves towards real-world evidence and health outcomes rather than profit margins.

[–] Bonskreeskreeskree@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Were all fighting over the most miniscule things in the grand scheme. We should all be demanding the most effective and efficient single payer program the world has ever seen.

You're right, we should be cutting out the bloated middleman entirely.

[–] ZombieTheZombieCat@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

It's true, but perfection is still the enemy of progress.

[–] randon31415@lemmy.world 23 points 10 months ago (1 children)

So I see you had diabetes last year. Was the insulin we gave you last year enough to cure it, or do still have it? Either way, we need to make sure you aren't selling it to bodybuilders, so go see a doctor to confirm it hasn't been cured.

[–] evatronic@lemm.ee 13 points 10 months ago

You joke, but I'm literally fighting this fight right now.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Prescription: Your doctor thinks you need a medication

Prior Authorization: Your insurance doesn't want pay for the medication and wants your doctor to affirm that he wrote a prescription

[–] csm10495@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

How about a similar rule that puts the provider on the hook for getting authorization for what they do?

Like I know the system is fucked, but I don't want my doctor having me go somewhere to find out I get a $500 bill. Make them get authorization and if it fails tell me the cost before the appointment gets made.

If I have to spit in a tube again to get a $500 bill, I'll call and threaten Natera again till they drop the bill. Bastards.

[–] Cowlitz@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

They already do for big services. Thats why its called a preauthorization. It just doesn't work well in emergencies and they dont do it for shit like routine blood draws. Ive had them tell me I could get a CT now and hope they approve it or take my chances. There is still incentive for the provider to fight the battle because patients getting big bills often don't pay them at all (it helps if you tell them though, they are busy and not necessarily keyed into every patients bill status).

[–] Froyn@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

LPT: If your doctor firmly believes that you require X treatment/medication/etc. Have them use the specific term "medically necessary". If your insurer kicks it back with that phrasing attached, contact them. Ask for the medical license number of the doctor who indicated that it was not medically necessary. Push for this information (they won't have it) and continue the line of "Someone on your end is making a medical decision against my doctors orders. I require their credentials so I can confirm they are a) qualified to make medical decisions, and b) have a higher education that my doctor possesses."

[–] Kbobabob@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I'll be interested if someone actually tried this

[–] Froyn@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago

I speak from experience. Blue Cross has not argued or denied any of our doctors' requests since the second time I used that method.
Had a specialist tell my wife she needed a shoulder replacement. Insurance wanted her to do physical therapy. I was livid. "I want the license number of the doctor on your end who is deciding that physical therapy is going to some how magically fix torn rotator cuff tendons. Telling our medical specialist that physical therapy is required is a medical decision that contradicts their diagnosis that it needs replaced. If we follow your recommendation and it fails, I need the name and license number of who to go after for making that decision. Shielding this professional, and I use that term loosely, indicates that you're willing to assume all the liability when "physical therapy" causes more pain and damage."

[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's nonsense. For one, what is required for a treatment is handled by CMS and the CPT code itself, so the necessary documentation is either there or it isn't and adding "medically necessary" doesn't change a damn thing. Secondly, the commercial payors go by their own schedules for what is always, is never, and can be "medically necessary," "experimental," "diagnostic-only," and a ton more. If your orthopedic surgeon is calling for a prior auth for a total knee replacement, it's always medically necessary; peripheral vein ablation, it's sometimes medically necessary; chin implant, never necessary.

[–] Froyn@kbin.social 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Then I'm full of shit and my wife's reverse shoulder joint is a figment of our collective imaginations.

[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's not one or the other. You're full of shit and your wife would have gotten her reverse total joint surgery regardless.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Insurers are known to automatically deny procedures based on what is essentially a flow chart (illegal) rather than a medical professional review of the case (required by law). This is why most insurers back down when a prior authorization is requested.

The whole process is being abused by insurers and if you ask doctors, nurses, pharmacists they'll tell you the process is being abused.