Microdiscectomy Insurance Medical Necessity Criteria Are Inconsistent and Unnecessarily Restrictive

BACKGROUND

Microdiscectomy for patients with chronic lumbar radiculopathy refractory to conservative therapy has significantly better outcomes than continued nonoperative management. The North American Spine Society (NASS) outlined specific criteria to establish medical necessity for elective lumbar microdiscectomy. We hypothesized that insurance providers have substantial variability among one another and from the NASS guidelines.

METHODS

A cross-sectional analysis of US national and local insurance companies was conducted to assess policies on coverage recommendations for lumbar microdiscectomy. Insurers were selected based on their enrollment data and market share of direct written premiums. The top 4 national insurance providers and the top 3 state-specific providers in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania were selected. Insurance coverage guidelines were accessed through a web-based search, provider account, or telephone call to the specific provider. If no policy was provided, it was documented as such. Preapproval criteria were entered as categorical variables and consolidated into 4 main categories: symptom criteria, examination criteria, imaging criteria, and conservative treatment.

RESULTS

The 13 selected insurers composed roughly 31% of the market share in the United States and approximately 82%, 62%, and 76% of the market share for New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, respectively. Insurance descriptions of symptom criteria, imaging criteria, and the definition of conservative treatment had substantial differences as compared with those defined by NASS.

CONCLUSION

Although a guideline to establish medical necessity was developed by NASS, many insurance companies have created their own guidelines, which have resulted in inconsistent management based on geographic location and selected provider.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Providers must be cognizant of the differing preapproval criteria needed for each in-network insurance company in order to provide effective and efficient care for patients with lumbar radiculopathy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5

Surrogacy and the Fiction of Medical Necessity

A number of countries and states prohibit surrogacy except in cases of "medical necessity" or for those with specific medical conditions. Healthcare providers in some countries have similar policies restricting the provision of clinical assistance in surrogacy. This paper argues that surrogacy is never medically necessary in any ordinary understanding of this term. The author aims to show first that surrogacy per se is a socio-legal intervention and not a medical one and, second, that the intervention in question does not treat, prevent, or mitigate any actual or potential harm to health. Legal regulations and healthcare-provider policies of this kind therefore codify a fiction-one which both obscures the socio-legal motivations for surrogacy and inhibits critical examination of those motivations while mobilizing normative connotations of appeals to medical need. The persisting distinction, in law and in moral discourse, between "social" and "medical" surrogacy, is unjustified.

'Maternal Request' Caesarean Sections and Medical Necessity

Currently, many women who are expecting to give birth have no option but to attempt vaginal delivery, since access to elective planned caesarean sections (PCS) in the absence of what is deemed to constitute ‘clinical need’ is variable. In this paper, we argue that PCS should be routinely offered to women who are expecting to give birth, and that the risks and benefits of PCS as compared with planned vaginal delivery should be discussed with them. Currently, discussions of elective PCS arise in the context of what are called ‘Maternal Request Caesarean Sections’ (MRCS) and there is a good deal of support for the position that women who request PCS without clinical indication should be provided with them. Our argument goes further than support for acceding to requests for MRCS: we submit that healthcare practitioners caring for women with uncomplicated pregnancies have a positive duty to inform them of the option of PCS as opposed to assuming vaginal delivery as a default, and to provide (or arrange for the provision of) PCS if that is the woman's preferred manner of delivery.

Medical need and health need

I introduce a distinction between health need and medical need, and raise several questions about their interaction. Health needs are needs that relate directly to our health condition. Medical needs are needs which bear some relation to medical institutions or processes. I suggest that the question of whether medical insurance or public care should cover medical needs, health needs, or only needs which fit both categories is a political question that cannot be resolved definitionally. I also argue against an overly strict definition of medical need on the grounds that this presupposes, wrongly, that medical intervention should always be a last resort.

What is 'medical necessity'?

Imagine that we are considering whether our healthcare system (or insurer) should fund treatment or procedure X. One factor that may be cited is that of so-called 'medical necessity'. The claim would be that treatment X should be eligible for funding if it is medically necessary, but ineligible if this does not apply. Similarly, (and relevant to the debates in this special issue), if considering whether a particular treatment should be ethically and/or legally permitted, we may wish to distinguish between cases where the treatment is medically necessary, and those were it is not. But what do we mean by this concept? Here I will propose and briefly defend one plausible and practical definition.

A proactive medical necessity review program reduces revenue loss associated with outpatient medical benefit drugs

PURPOSE

A common denial trend that occurs with "outpatient medical benefit drugs" (ie, medications covered by a medical benefit plan and administered in an outpatient visit) is payers not requiring or permitting prior authorization (PA) proactively, yet denying the drug after administration for medical necessity. In this situation, a preemptive strategy of complying with payer-mandated requirements is critical for revenue protection. To address this need, our institution incorporated a medical necessity review into its existing closed-loop, pharmacy-managed precertification and denials management program.

SUMMARY

Referrals for targeted payers and high-cost medical benefit drugs not eligible for PA and deemed high risk for denial were incorporated into the review. Payer medical policies were evaluated and clinical documentation assessed to confirm alignment. This descriptive report outlines the medical necessity workflow as a component of the larger precertification process, details the decision-making process when performing the review, and delineates the roles and responsibilities for involved team members. A total of 526 drug orders were evaluated from September 2018 to August 2019, with 146 interventions completed. Of the 761 individual claims affected by proactive medical necessity review, 99.2% resulted in payment and less than 1% resulted in revenue loss, safeguarding more than $5.3 million in annual institutional drug reimbursement. At the time of analysis, there were only 3 cases of revenue loss.

CONCLUSION

Our institution's pharmacy-managed medical necessity review program for high-cost outpatient drugs safeguards reimbursement for therapies not eligible for payer PA. It is a revenue cycle best practice that can be replicated at other institutions.

What is the best age to circumcise? A medical and ethical analysis

Circumcision is often claimed to be simpler, safer and more cost-effective when performed in the neonatal period as opposed to later in life, with a greater benefit-to-risk ratio. In the first part of this paper, we critically examine the evidence base for these claims, and find that it is not as robust as is commonly assumed. In the second part, we demonstrate that, even if one simply grants these claims for the sake of argument, it still does not follow that neonatal circumcision is ethically permissible absent urgent medical necessity. Based on a careful consideration of the relevant evidence, arguments and counterarguments, we conclude that medically unnecessary penile circumcision-like other medically unnecessary genital procedures, such as 'cosmetic' labiaplasty-should not be performed on individuals who are too young (or otherwise unable) to provide meaningful consent to the procedure.

Late-Term Abortion and Medical Necessity: A Failure of Science

Roe V. Wade (1973) placed the concept of medical necessity at the center of the public discourse on abortion. Nearly a half century later, 2 laws dealing with late-term abortion, 1 passed in New York and 1 set aside in Virginia, are an indication that the medical necessity argument regarding abortion has been rendered irrelevant. More importantly for this discussion, these laws are an indication of the failure of the US scientific and medical communities to inform this consequential topic with transparency, logical coherence, and evidence-based objectivity.

Contact to the out-of-hours service among Danish parents of small children - a qualitative interview study

OBJECTIVE

In Denmark, parents with small children have the highest contact frequency to out-of-hours (OOH) service, but reasons for OOH care use are sparsely investigated. The aim was to explore parental contact pattern to OOH services and to explore parents' experiences with managing their children's acute health problems.

DESIGN

A qualitative study was undertaken drawing on a phenomenological approach. We used semi-structured interviews, followed by an inductive content analysis. Nine parents with children below four years of age were recruited from a child day care centre in Aarhus, Denmark for interviews.

RESULTS

Navigation, information, parental worry and parental development appeared to have an impact on OOH services use. The parents found it easy to navigate in the health care system, but they often used the OOH service instead of their own general practitioner (GP) due to more compatible opening hours and insecurity about the urgency of symptoms. When worried about the severity, the parents sought information from e.g. the internet or the health care professionals. The first child caused more worries and insecurity due to less experience with childhood diseases and the contact frequency seemed to decrease with parental development.

CONCLUSION

Parents' use of the OOH service is affected by their health literacy levels, e.g. level of information, how easy they find access to their GP, how trustworthy and authorized health information is, as well as how much they worry and their parental experience. These findings must be considered when planning effective health services for young families. Key points The main findings are that the parents in our study found it easy to navigate in the healthcare system, but they used the OOH service instead of their own general practitioner, when this suited their needs. The parents sought information from e.g. the internet or the health care professionals when they were worried about the severity of their children's diseases. They sometimes navigated strategically in the healthcare system by e.g. using the OOH service for reassurance and when it was most convenient according to opening hours. The first child seemed to cause more worries and insecurity due to limited experience with childhood diseases, and parental development seems to decrease contact frequency. Overall, this study contributes with valuable insights into the understanding of parents' help seeking behaviour. There seems to be a potential for supporting especially first-time parents in their use of the out of hours services.

Medical Need, Equality, and Uncertainty

Many hold that distributing healthcare according to medical need is a requirement of equality. Most egalitarians believe, however, that people ought to be equal on the whole, by some overall measure of well-being or life-prospects; it would be a massive coincidence if distributing healthcare according to medical need turned out to be an effective way of promoting equality overall. I argue that distributing healthcare according to medical need is important for reducing individuals' uncertainty surrounding their future medical needs. In other words, distributing healthcare according to medical need is a natural feature of healthcare insurance; it is about indemnity, not equality.

Defining and determining medical necessity in Medicaid managed care

OBJECTIVES

In 2013, the American Academy of Pediatrics published a policy statement calling for pediatricians to be informed about the need for specific pediatric medical necessity language because children deserve "the intent embedded in Medicaid." This study aims to explore the definitions and determinations of medical necessity in Medicaid Managed Care (MMC), document the relevant language used throughout Medicaid, and investigate whether the federal standard of medical necessity for children is replicated in related state documents.

METHODS

We conducted a desk review of state statutes, model MMC contracts, and 2 provider manuals per state, for 33 states with a full-risk MMC model.

RESULTS

The federal "to correct and ameliorate" standard was replicated in 100% of state regulations, 72% of MMC model contracts (n = 13 of 18 MMC model contracts available online), and 54% of provider manuals (n = 30 of 56 available and sampled online). Only 9 states had an explicit "preventive" pediatric medical necessity standard in their state regulations that exemplified "the intent imbedded in Medicaid."

CONCLUSIONS

The federal medical necessity standard for children is not replicated consistently within MMC programs from the state, to health plans, to network providers. Although the majority of the documents reviewed included the standard, the presence of the standard decreased by almost half between state-level and network-provider-level regulations. Having a single, explicitly defined pediatric medical necessity definition replicated at all levels of the health system would reduce confusion and increase the ability of pediatricians to apply the standard more uniformly.

Defining 'medical necessity' in an age of personalised medicine: A view from Canada

The concept of medical necessity plays a central role in many healthcare systems, including Canada's, by helping determine which healthcare services will receive funding. Despite its significance in health policy frameworks, medical necessity has proven to be notoriously difficult to define and operationalise. A shift toward a more personalised and genetically-informed approach to the provision of healthcare seems likely to heighten associated policy challenges. One of the stated goals of personalised medicine is to save healthcare systems money by facilitating the use of less and more effective treatments. However, any cost saving potential may ultimately be thwarted by physicians' legal and ethical obligations, given that physicians will inevitably be required to implement and define the bounds of genetically-informed medical necessity for their patients.

Essential contractual language for medical necessity in children

The previous policy statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics, "Model Language for Medical Necessity in Children," was published in July 2005. Since that time, there have been new and emerging delivery and payment models. The relationship established between health care providers and health plans should promote arrangements that are beneficial to all who are affected by these contractual arrangements. Pediatricians play an important role in ensuring that the needs of children are addressed in these emerging systems. It is important to recognize that health care plans designed for adults may not meet the needs of children. Language in health care contracts should reflect the health care needs of children and families. Informed pediatricians can make a difference in the care of children and influence the role of primary care physicians in the new paradigms. This policy highlights many of the important elements pediatricians should assess as providers develop a role in emerging care models.

Insurance coverage for pharmacogenomic testing in the USA

The completion of the Human Genome Project has led to claims that we are on the verge of entering the era of 'personalized medicine'. Some initial, highly visible successes have positioned pharmacogenomics as the poster child for this new era. Many commercial referral laboratories are offering pharmacogenomic assays. In the US healthcare system, payers have had a significant impact on utilization of new drugs and technologies. Payers are frequently characterized as a barrier to the rapid dissemination of innovative therapies. In reality, payers are frequently the only group that scrutinize these new therapies for utility. As such, they play a critical role in assuring that their members are receiving appropriate care.