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

Stop Medical Malpractice: The White Coat Wall of Silence

Photo Credit Leisure Guy, one of my most faithful commenters, opines that I am omitting an important aspect of the tort reform argument. He has implored me repeatedly to read a particular book that I suspect buttresses his views, but this worthy pursuit is simply not near the top of my priority pyramid. Since he’s retired, he enjoys the luxury of burrowing deeply into the base of his priority pyramid. With 4 tuitions to go, retirement is a distant mirage for me. I’m can be a ‘leisure guy’, but only in my dreams. I have written throughout this blog and elsewhere that there are too many frivolous lawsuits against physicians. I have admitted that caps on non-economic damages are not ideal, because they deny some worthy plaintiffs of complete compensation, but I support them because I believe they serve the greater good. I have ranted that there is no effective filter to screen out physicians who should never be invited to the litigation party in the first place. I believe that the...

When Should Doctors Retire?

I am asked with some regularity whether I am aiming to retire in the near term.  Years ago, I never received such inquiries.  Why now?   Might it be because my coiffure and goatee – although finely-manicured – has long entered the gray area?  Could it be because many other even younger physicians have given up their stethoscopes for lives of leisure? (Hopefully, my inquiring patients are not suspecting me of professional performance lapses!) Interestingly, a nurse in my office recently approached me and asked me sotto voce that she heard I was retiring.    “Interesting,” I remarked.   Since I was unaware of this retirement news, I asked her when would be my last day at work.   I have no idea where this erroneous rumor originated from.   I requested that my nurse-friend contact her flawed intel source and set him or her straight.   Retirement might seem tempting to me as I have so many other interests.   Indeed, reading and ...

Prostate Cancer Screening: Stop The PSA Train!

About 10 years ago, my dad was to see his general internist. I have always refrained from giving medical advice to my family, for all of the reasons why doctors should not treat or advise their relatives. But, on this occasion, I did give Dad some unsolicited advice, particularly as I knew that his physician fired the diagnostic testing trigger readily. “Dad, please make sure that he doesn’t check the PSA (prostate specific antigen) test.” Dad indicated that he would convey my concern to his doctor, who ran the test on him anyway. Apparently, he includes the PSA test as a matter of routine on all men over a certain age. Twenty-five years ago as a curious, but skeptical medical student, I learned about prostate cancer. I learned that every man will develop it if he lives long enough. I learned that most cases of prostate cancer remain silent and never interfere with the individual’s life. I learned that the treatment for these cancers involves either major surgery or radiation, both of ...