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
    link
    fedilink
    1610 months ago

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

    • @Fedizen
      link
      210 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
      link
      -1010 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
        link
        610 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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            16 months ago

            Insurance companies are going to do anything they can to reduce loss ratio, but… That is literally the plot of a John Grisham novel (pre-ACA, so it was a little more complicated than that, but still).

            Maybe that’s not the model that real-life insurers should be copying.

        • @Telodzrum
          link
          -210 months ago

          No one is saying insurers aren’t horrible people and organizations denying care to patients in need. What I am saying is that “medically necessary” aren’t magical words. This is some cargo cult nonsense.

      • @Naberius
        link
        410 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.

        • @Telodzrum
          link
          -910 months ago

          Did you read my reply? You’re really out of your depth here, buddy.

          • @Naberius
            link
            210 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
        link
        English
        0
        edit-2
        10 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.