140
New Biden rule cracks down on insurers’ use of prior authorization (thehill.com)
submitted 2 years ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

top 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Froyn@kbin.social 63 points 2 years ago

LPT: If your doctor firmly believes that you require X treatment/medication/etc. Have them use the specific term "medically necessary". If your insurer kicks it back with that phrasing attached, contact them. Ask for the medical license number of the doctor who indicated that it was not medically necessary. Push for this information (they won't have it) and continue the line of "Someone on your end is making a medical decision against my doctors orders. I require their credentials so I can confirm they are a) qualified to make medical decisions, and b) have a higher education that my doctor possesses."

[-] otp@sh.itjust.works 17 points 2 years ago

This reads like a summary of a chapter in a dystopian novel

[-] athos77@kbin.social 6 points 2 years ago

It reads like sovereign citizen advice.

[-] ChillPenguin@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

Ffs, is this truly where we are at? Fuck me...

[-] JustZ@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Nurses usually make these calls, as I understand.

[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Prescription: Your doctor thinks you need a medication

Prior Authorization: Your insurance doesn't want pay for the medication and wants your doctor to affirm that he wrote a prescription

[-] The_Picard_Maneuver@startrek.website 9 points 2 years ago

This is a good step in the right direction, but I'd like to see it applied to commercial plans as well. Prior authorization is everything they're saying it is and worse.

[-] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

the madness that is US “healthcare” never ceases to amaze me.

Know what happens when a doctor recommends me a treatment? I get that treatment.

I don’t have to hope an insurance company will “approve” of me getting that treatment. I don’t have to worry about paying for it.

Anyone still defending this system needs psychological help. Which would be denied by the insurance company. And cost 10000s out of pocket

[-] Witchfire@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Anyone still defending this system needs psychological help. Which would be denied by the insurance company. And cost 10000s out of pocket

Approximately half the country supports it because it hurts people they don't like, and they're about to elect a literal dictator. Please send help

[-] csm10495@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago

How about a similar rule that puts the provider on the hook for getting authorization for what they do?

Like I know the system is fucked, but I don't want my doctor having me go somewhere to find out I get a $500 bill. Make them get authorization and if it fails tell me the cost before the appointment gets made.

If I have to spit in a tube again to get a $500 bill, I'll call and threaten Natera again till they drop the bill. Bastards.

[-] Cowlitz@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

They already do for big services. Thats why its called a preauthorization. It just doesn't work well in emergencies and they dont do it for shit like routine blood draws. Ive had them tell me I could get a CT now and hope they approve it or take my chances. There is still incentive for the provider to fight the battle because patients getting big bills often don't pay them at all (it helps if you tell them though, they are busy and not necessarily keyed into every patients bill status).

[-] Drusas@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago

That would slow medical care down dramatically.

[-] csm10495@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago

But why? This should be automated based on my coverage plan.

[-] Drusas@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago

Because it's not an automated process to get a procedure authorized.

[-] csm10495@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago

Make it automated.

[-] 4am@lemm.ee -4 points 2 years ago

Let’s not forget why Prior Authorization exists - shitty doctors who get kickbacks from labs or imaging facilities (or who own them) sending patients there unnecessarily in order to embezzle unecessary payments from Medicare and Medicaid (or even commercial) plans, draining risk pools for their own gain.

There are no good guys in America.

[-] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 4 points 2 years ago

That is already illegal. Prior auth was not a necessary intervention for this problem.

[-] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

So instead we have giant, mega corp insurance companie "non-profits" designing "AI" systems that auto deny 90% of all medical treatments and fight tooth and nail against the other 10%. All so they can drain money from patients and the goverment, injurying or directly killing milllions of americans every year for their own gain.

Neat fix.

[-] Cowlitz@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Whats funny is you cite Medicare fraud. Medicare has a very short list of things they require preauths for. They are the easiest to work with. They do audits and if they spot any issues will take back all of the money. People are genuinely scared of that happening as it can be a lot at once if we did something wrong for a while.

this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2024
140 points (99.3% liked)

News

37817 readers
566 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
rjc@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world