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.

  • breadsmasher@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    103
    ·
    10 months 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

    • goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      51
      ·
      10 months ago

      It gets better. So many times Dr’s will have to start with treatments they know won’t work because otherwise insurance will just decline it all together.

        • LeadersAtWork@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          It may cost more for that individual, which is likely additive. What’s multiplicative is the number of people who don’t or can’t jump through the hoops and just move on. Having a tough time getting out of a subscription service? Insurance basically did it first.

          • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            10 months ago

            Agreed, they play the numbers game but at the cost of human suffering. All the cases where it costs them more though is just illustrative of the stupidity of it and helps show that there is room for legislation to curb this.

    • 𝕱𝖎𝖗𝖊𝖜𝖎𝖙𝖈𝖍@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months 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

  • Froyn@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    89
    ·
    10 months 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.”

  • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    10 months ago

    Why are we letting the insurance companies make decisions like doctors in the first place again again?

    • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      42
      ·
      10 months ago

      Because doctors have a financial incentive to order and perform/give expensive procedures and drugs that may not necessarily be medically necessary.

      This is obviously a somewhat different situation, but I’d remind you that lots of doctors made a lot of money by unnecessarily prescribing Oxycontin that the spiraled into the opioid crisis.

      It’s not unreasonable for there to be some kind of check, though to be clear, I’m not saying the current system is good. But, insurance just automatically paying for anything a doctor orders is open for abuse, and that needs to be addressed one way or another.

      • n2burns@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        10 months ago

        This is obviously a somewhat different situation, but I’d remind you that lots of doctors made a lot of money by unnecessarily prescribing Oxycontin that the spiraled into the opioid crisis.

        Some doctors made a lot of money. Most believed what they were told and prescribed medication they thought would help their patients.

        • Fedizen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Marketing by opiate manufactureres cooked up a small study that said certain opiates had slow release versions that were less addictive and doctors bought in for a while.

          I would step back a little though and say the reason people actually need so many opiates in america ties into larger problems that cause the US to have far more injuries than other countries:

          1. Over reliance on car infrastructure and commuting because improper zoning and lack of public transit

          2. Poor labor protections and safety in workplaces

          3. Gun fucking

      • dohpaz42@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        That’s a bullshit excuse (to be blunt). What you’re suggesting is that it’s the insurance companies job to police doctors who are doing harm to their patients. There is already a body that does this (or is supposed to): the medical board. If the insurance company feels that a doctor is abusing their privileges, then it needs to be taken up with the appropriate authorities. It does not mean causing further harm to the patient by denying possibly critical services.

      • gibmiser@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        There is nothing stopping it from being a retroactive investigation. Doctor prescribes it and then has to send evidence to the Insurance Company who can review it. If there’s a pattern of Bad behavior with one doctor they can press charges or something like that. But until then you’re holding up treatment on the suspicion of the possibility.

        • Cowlitz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          Thats what Medicare does. People around the hospital are afraid to fuck anything up because they will go back and take all of their money back.

      • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        We don’t have anyone to make better medical decisions than doctors. I certainly don’t want insurance company bureaucrats substituting their medical judgment for my doctor’s, even if my doctor sucks.

  • The Picard Maneuver@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    10 months 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.

    • rtfm_modular@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      10 months ago

      It’s the difference between single-payer systems run by the government and private, for-profit commercial plans. I’m happy to see this carried out on an executive level since an actual law regulating private insurance would be a shit storm in congress. Remove the profit motive from insurers and the shift quickly moves towards real-world evidence and health outcomes rather than profit margins.

    • Bonskreeskreeskree@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Were all fighting over the most miniscule things in the grand scheme. We should all be demanding the most effective and efficient single payer program the world has ever seen.

  • Fedizen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months 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

  • csm10495@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    10 months 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months 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).

  • 4am@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    10 months 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.

    • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months 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.