The classic “he said, she said” scenario shouldn’t apply to healthcare claims. A denial based on medical necessity arises when there are two opposing opinions: (1) the treating physician who recommends that a patient receive treatment necessary for the patient’s condition; and (2) the insurance company’s physician reviewer who has never seen the patient. In deciding medical necessity, the insurance company must consider clinical judgment. But whose clinical judgment applies?
Clinical judgment is defined as “the application of information based on actual observation of a patient combined with subjective and objective data that lead to a conclusion.” http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/clinical+judgment. In most cases, the only physician who has “actual observation of a patient” is the treating physician.
Yet insurance companies give little to no credence to the clinical judgment of treating physicians. For example, major health insurer, Anthem, states that its physician reviewers will apply guidelines, “Anthem corporate medical policy, and other decision-support material.” And when criteria is not available, “physician reviewers make a determination based on the available information and their independent clinical judgment.” https://www.anthem.com/wps/portal/ahpfooter?content_path=provider/nv/f4/s4/t0/pw_002053.htm&label=Medical%20Management
Notably missing from Anthem’s website is any consideration of the treating physician’s recommendation that was based on true clinical judgment.
When insurance companies dismiss or ignore the opinions of the treating physician, the patient suffers by lack of treatment and increased healthcare costs. We represent patients across the United States who have been denied benefits for medically necessary treatment. If you need assistance with your insurance denial, contact us.