Skip to main content

The Agony of Insurance Company Denials


I just read of a a jury award in excess of $25 million against an insurance company who denied a recommended cancer treatment to a patient who ultimately died.  I do not wish to review here the particulars of this case, and admit that my knowledge is limited by one news report that I read earlier today.  While I will not invoke the ubiquitous phrase FAKE NEWS, I always bring some measure of skepticism to various news sources, even those who enjoy excellent reputations.  

The Olde Town Crier Always Told the Truth


But this jury case raises an issue that physicians and patients wrestle with regularly.

The physician prescribes a medication or recommends a treatment.

The insurance company denies coverage for the recommendation.

Sometimes, the reason for the denial is entirely reasonable.  For example, if an insurance policy restricts a patient to a network of physicians, the company will deny coverage if the patient wants to seek care out of the network.  It would not be reasonable for a patient who had access to network cardiologists to expect that a visit with an out-of-network cardiologist would be covered. 

Sometimes, the reason for a denial is absurd.  A physician prescribes a medication.  The insurance company denies coverage insisting that the medicine would be covered only if different medicines were tried first and were not effective.  The term for this is step therapy requirement and doctors despise it.  So, this is not a categorical denial, like with the cardiologist example above, but is a qualified denial.  The medicine is covered if the physician complies with insurance company edicts.  Here’s what the physician might tell his patient.

“I prescribed a medication to you that my training and experience informs me is the best choice for you.  Instead, let’s spend the next few months giving you some different medicines, just for fun.  I don’t think this medicine really makes sense in your case; that’s why I didn’t prescribe it.  Your insurance company, who always has your health and welfare as its highest priority, want us to wander off course for a while.  Who knows?  Miracles happen.  Maybe the stuff might work by accident.  No need to fret too much.   Eventually they will give in and you will ultimately get the right stuff covered.  And think of all the quality time the two of us will enjoy on our journey together!”

Here are some of the benefits of the qualified insurance company denial.
  • It wastes money.
  • It exposes patients to risks of side-effects from unnecessary medications.
  • Physicians and their staffs get to fill out lots of fun forms filled with ridiculous documentation requirements.  This is a welcome distraction for our staffs from the stress of their typical office responsibilities.
  • Some patients and physicians simply give up.  Do you think this might be one of the unstated goals of Big Insurance?
  • It delays the right medical treatment.
  • It pisses off patients.
  • It pisses off doctors.
  • It reinforces the narrative that insurance companies are self-serving corporate entities whose overriding mi$$ion is profit.
There are also many occasions when a denial is neither clearly reasonable nor unreasonable.  It can be difficult to determine if a recommended treatment is standard or experimental, especially if experts disagree on this point.  This is not a major issue if one is considering a treatment for acne.  But, what if an oncologist recommends a bone marrow transplant (BMT) for a desperately ill person, which some experts and institutions regard as experimental?   Does it matter if the F.D.A. has not approved the treatment?  What if other countries have decided that a BMT in the same circumstance is standard treatment?

These scenarios can be agonizing and vexing for patients, family members, physicians, insurance company personnel, the public and juries to sort out.   I have no easy formula to offer readers.

Just because a doctor recommends a treatment, doesn’t mean it is established care.  And, just because an insurance company denies a treatment, doesn’t mean the company is evil.  

If one of my loved ones was desperate for a medical treatment, and many doctors felt it was the right and reasonable choice, I know how I would feel.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why Most Doctors Choose Employment

Increasingly, physicians today are employed and most of them willingly so.  The advantages of this employment model, which I will highlight below, appeal to the current and emerging generations of physicians and medical professionals.  In addition, the alternatives to direct employment are scarce, although they do exist.  Private practice gastroenterology practices in Cleveland, for example, are increasingly rare sightings.  Another practice model is gaining ground rapidly on the medical landscape.   Private equity (PE) firms have   been purchasing medical practices who are in need of capital and management oversight.   PE can provide services efficiently as they may be serving multiple practices and have economies of scale.   While these physicians technically have authority over all medical decisions, the PE partners can exert behavioral influences on physicians which can be ethically problematic. For example, if the PE folks reduce non-medical overhead, this may very directly affe

Should Doctors Wear White Coats?

Many professions can be easily identified by their uniforms or state of dress. Consider how easy it is for us to identify a policeman, a judge, a baseball player, a housekeeper, a chef, or a soldier.  There must be a reason why so many professions require a uniform.  Presumably, it is to create team spirit among colleagues and to communicate a message to the clientele.  It certainly doesn’t enhance professional performance.  For instance, do we think if a judge ditches the robe and is wearing jeans and a T-shirt, that he or she cannot issue sage rulings?  If members of a baseball team showed up dressed in comfortable street clothes, would they commit more errors or achieve fewer hits?  The medical profession for most of its existence has had its own uniform.   Male doctors donned a shirt and tie and all doctors wore the iconic white coat.   The stated reason was that this created an aura of professionalism that inspired confidence in patients and their families.   Indeed, even today

Electronic Medical Records vs Physicians: Not a Fair Fight!

Each work day, I enter the chamber of horrors also known as the electronic medical record (EMR).  I’ve endured several versions of this torture over the years, monstrosities that were designed more to appeal to the needs of billers and coders than physicians. Make sense? I will admit that my current EMR, called Epic, is more physician-friendly than prior competitors, but it remains a formidable adversary.  And it’s not a fair fight.  You might be a great chess player, but odds are that you will not vanquish a computer adversary armed with artificial intelligence. I have a competitive advantage over many other physician contestants in the battle of Man vs Machine.   I can type well and can do so while maintaining eye contact with the patient.   You must think I am a magician or a savant.   While this may be true, the birth of my advanced digital skills started decades ago.   (As an aside, digital competence is essential for gastroenterologists.) During college, I worked as a secretary