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.

    • Froyn@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      68
      ·
      11 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        11 months ago

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

        • Fedizen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          “medically necessary” I think is just one of the descriptive words surrounding the language of the laws and forms. Its actually one of a number of phrases that should work as I’m pretty sure I’ve had a couple without it. Realistically any challenge that requires the insurance company to actually get a doctor to review a case should get a successful prior auth.

        • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            11 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.

          • Naberius@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            11 months ago

            You literally say it in your own reply. “Sometimes medically necessary”. If you think nearly everything isn’t classified as that by a company who makes more money the more healthcare they don’t cover I don’t know what anyone can say to you to bring you back to the reality of US healthcare. They hire unemployable doctors with histories of malpractice to deny claims in bulk.

              • Naberius@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                11 months ago

                I did. It was truly unfortunate. After working in healthcare for a decade I thought i had seen all possible shit takes…I was wrong lol.

          • Cowlitz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            It isn’t about what’s actually medically necessary. Insurance companies will use any excuse to pull bs. It greatly matters how a court would view it. People are stupid and could buy the insurance companies arguments that it wasn’t made clear that it was medically necessary. Its also important that scheduled procedures are generally termed “elective” even if they are something like a necessary heart procedure. That terminology could be confusing to people who are not medically literate. Making it harder to make a case against them should something happen. They know this and fuck around. CPT codes only tell them what the condition is. There are some conditions that are not life threatening but still God awful to deal with having. You better believe they try to make people try treatments their doctor already knows won’t work and otherwise try to find excuses for why its not medically necessary.

            It doesn’t matter that you don’t think such language should be necessary. This is the real world. Not some fantasy land in your head. Our Supreme Court is clearly incapable of reading the constitution. Why on earth would you think anybody else in this country would be able to read? Especially when they already have policies to intentionally hassle people because it saves them money. Its obvious you’ve never interacted extensively with the American Healthcare system or have only used it with Medicare. Preauths are one of the worst things I have to deal with at my job.