logo
Insurance companies delay and deny needed health care. Here's how to stop that.

Insurance companies delay and deny needed health care. Here's how to stop that.

Boston Globe28-01-2025

The insurance companies wanted to show they were 'doing something' to help control rapidly rising health care costs. Some insurance companies made money charging extra for 'pre-admission certification.' There was no evidence then that prior authorizations for any medical test or procedure would protect patients, improve care quality, or save money. Forty years later, there is still not much evidence they do any good. In fact, they cause harm. About 25 percent of physicians in
Advertisement
Problems with prior authorizations are responsible for almost half of
Advertisement
Requiring insurance companies to publish their prior authorization denial rates on all marketing materials and platforms would let patients and plan sponsors know how likely it is that their claim would be paid before they bought the insurance. The Affordable Care Act requires insurance companies to compile denial rates for plans offered on its marketplaces, but the information is not widely available, and the regulations to publish it have not been enforced. There are no similar requirements for commercial, Medicaid, or Medicare plans.
Denying claims is a very effective way for health insurance companies to make money. Only about half of all bill denials are ultimately overturned, resulting in payments to care providers. The process for appealing a denial is so complicated that fewer than 1 percent of patients bother to appeal, and most of them lose in a process that is controlled by insurance companies. Very few patients even know they have a right to an external appeal when the insurance company turns them down. Pharmacy benefit managers, often owned by health insurance companies, increase their profits through prior authorization. Sometimes they pay for only the brand-name drugs the benefit managers get a kickback for promoting. Transparent, speedy, and independent reviews of medical care, prescription, and bill denials can be implemented if the companies and agencies buying insurance tell the insurance companies to do so.
Advertisement
Ending prior authorization, publishing denial rates, and forcing speedy, fair appeals would eliminate the majority of medical claim denials and delays in care. These changes would increase access to medical services and reduce patients' anxiety. They would also create an atmosphere for legitimate research into policies that improve patient outcomes, improve quality of care, and prevent wasteful, harmful medical practices.
David L. Rosenbloom is a professor emeritus at Boston University School of Public Health. He served as commissioner of health and hospitals for the city of Boston from 1975 to 1983.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Senior care, already challenged by pandemic and Boomers aging, needs Medicaid
Senior care, already challenged by pandemic and Boomers aging, needs Medicaid

Yahoo

time15 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Senior care, already challenged by pandemic and Boomers aging, needs Medicaid

PACE, the Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly, centers provide government-funded medical care and social services to people older than 55, and they are a growing alternative to nursing home care. In the photo, physical therapist Brad Ellis, standing, works with George Raines on mobility issues at a PACE center in Tennessee. (Anna Claire Vollers/Stateline) Caring for Oregon's seniors has been my life's work. It began when I was a high school student in Hillsboro, and it continues today in my role leading Arete Living, an Oregon-based company that provides assisted living and memory care facilities. Our caregivers and staff provide essential care to hundreds of seniors and people with disabilities every day in all corners of the state. We meet people where they are, and we provide the care they need to sustain their independence and quality of life. The work is hard, but it is also incredibly rewarding and fulfilling. The last five years in senior care have been challenging to say the least. We faced a global pandemic and worked tirelessly to keep our residents safe and supported. And yet, with the pandemic behind us, I can say that I have never been more worried about the future of long term care in Oregon. At the federal level, discussions around cutting Medicaid are rampant and incredibly worrisome. At the state level, difficult decisions are being made about what programs to fund and what programs to cut. I am deeply concerned about what cuts to healthcare, or flat investments, will mean for our seniors as more Baby Boomers age into the years of their life when they need care, whether it is in an assisted living facility or in their own home. The increasing number of aging Oregonians who have more complex care needs than past generations, along with record-high inflation in medical supplies, food services, labor, and other critical health care components, means that the cost to provide care in Oregon is higher than it has ever been. These issues are felt more deeply in our rural and frontier communities where fewer caregivers are available and health care deserts already exist. Older Oregonians who have spent their lives in these communities should not have to move away from family and friends simply to find care. But Oregon is seeing assisted living and memory care facilities close their doors amid the combined pressures of more regulation, higher costs, and an underfunded Medicaid system. I know that lawmakers have hard choices to make, and I do not envy their positions. But I urge them to think about the seniors in their districts who have worked hard and contributed to Oregon's beauty and success. They deserve a long term care system that is well-funded and thriving. That will only happen when lawmakers step up and invest in Medicaid for our most vulnerable seniors, the same individuals we serve every day at Arete facilities and in others around the state. They are counting on us. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

Top Dems claim 51K people will die annually from the 'big beautiful bill' and its Obamacare freeze
Top Dems claim 51K people will die annually from the 'big beautiful bill' and its Obamacare freeze

Yahoo

time15 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Top Dems claim 51K people will die annually from the 'big beautiful bill' and its Obamacare freeze

Two top Democrats claimed the Republicans' budget reconciliation bill and its proposal to let enhanced Obamacare credits expire will cause the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans. Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, along with Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., announced findings that an estimated 51,000 Americans could die each year due to Republican-led changes to the federal healthcare system and the broader reconciliation bill. The national debt — which measures what the U.S. owes its creditors — fell to $36,214,400,664,854.53 as of June 3rd, according to the latest numbers published by the Treasury Department. That is down about $1.4 billion from the figure reported the previous day. Wyden called the "stakes" of the 'big, beautiful bill' debate "truly life and death," as a statement from his office read that "a new analysis estimates that more than 51,000 people will die per year as a direct result of the Republican reconciliation bill, and their refusal to extend Affordable Care Act premium tax credits." "Taking away health insurance and benefits like home care and mental healthcare from seniors, people with disabilities, kids, and working families will be deadly," Wyden said. "This analysis shows the dire consequences of moving ahead with this morally bankrupt effort," he said, referring to a study he and Sanders asked the University of Pennsylvania and Yale to conduct. Read On The Fox News App Liberals Blame Big Beautiful Bill's Loss On Dying Dems The Democrats employed the Philadelphia college's Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, as well as the Yale School of Public Health's Center for Infectious Disease Modeling and Analysis. "Let's be clear," Sanders said in a statement, "The Republican reconciliation bill which makes massive cuts to Medicaid in order to pay for huge tax breaks for billionaires is not just bad public policy." "It is not just immoral. It is a death sentence for struggling Americans." "[N]ot only will some of the most vulnerable people throughout our country suffer, but tens of thousands will die. We cannot allow that to happen," Sanders added. Winners, Losers And Grab-bags From House Gop's Narrow Passage Of 'Big, Beautiful Bill' In a copy of the study posted on UPenn's website, economics and health-centric academics found 7.7 million people would be estimated to lose Medicaid or Obamacare coverage by 2034, and 1.38 million "dual-eligible beneficiaries" would find themselves "disenroll[ed]." In a statement, Wyden cited figures of 11,300 deaths from the loss of Medicaid or Obamacare coverage, 18,200 deaths from the loss of Medicaid coverage among low-income beneficiaries and 13,000 deaths of Medicaid enrollees in nursing homes due to the rollback of a "nursing home minimum staffing rule" from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Wyden attributed an additional projected 8,811 deaths per year to the "failure to extend the enhanced [Obamacare] premium tax credits," citing the academics' analysis. Fox News Digital reached out to House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., -- who spearheaded the "big, beautiful bill" in the House -- for comment. A representative for UPenn told Fox News Digital the university sent the results of their analysis to Wyden and Sanders in response to a request on the matter. "The estimates of mortality that are contained in the letter were based on peer-review research that was done independently and well before their request," the UPenn representative said. "The senators' request was to take the research results and translate into the estimated number of deaths."Original article source: Top Dems claim 51K people will die annually from the 'big beautiful bill' and its Obamacare freeze

What Trump Revoking Emergency Abortion Guidance Means for Care
What Trump Revoking Emergency Abortion Guidance Means for Care

Yahoo

time15 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

What Trump Revoking Emergency Abortion Guidance Means for Care

Abortion-rights activists rally for reproductive rights and emergency abortion care outside the U.S. Supreme Court as it hears arguments in a case that deals with whether Idaho's near-total abortion ban conflicts with the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, in Washington, D.C., on April 24, 2024. Credit - Saul Loeb—AFP/Getty Images The Trump Administration has added to the confusion surrounding the U.S.'s shifting patchwork of abortion laws by rescinding Biden-era guidance that directed hospitals to provide abortions in emergency situations, even in states where abortion is restricted. The decision, announced on Tuesday, does not change the federal law that was at the heart of the Biden Administration's guidance: the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which requires hospitals that receive Medicare funding—which is most of them—to provide stabilizing treatment to patients experiencing medical emergencies or transfer them to a hospital that can. The Trump Administration's Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) said in a press release that it 'will continue to enforce EMTALA, which protects all individuals who present to a hospital emergency department seeking examination or treatment, including for identified emergency medical conditions that place the health of a pregnant woman or her unborn child in serious jeopardy.' But the agency also said that it 'will work to rectify any perceived legal confusion and instability created by the former administration's actions.' Doctors and abortion-rights advocates, however, said they feared that the Administration's move will amplify confusion over whether doctors can provide critical care, thereby putting lives at risk. Dr. Jamila Perritt—an ob-gyn in Washington, D.C., and the president and CEO of Physicians for Reproductive Health—said in a press release that rescinding the Biden-era guidance would force "providers like me to choose between caring for someone in their time of need and turning my back on them to comply with cruel and dangerous laws.' 'This action sends a clear message: the lives and health of pregnant people are not worth protecting,' Perritt said. The Biden Administration issued the guidance after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, reminding hospitals of their 'obligations' under EMTALA, as state laws restricting or banning abortion began going into effect. 'Any state actions against a physician who provides an abortion in order to stabilize an emergency medical condition in a pregnant individual presenting to the hospital would be preempted by the federal EMTALA statute due to the direct conflict with the 'stabilized' provision of the statute,' the guidance stressed. 'Moreover, EMTALA contains a whistleblower provision that prevents retaliation by the hospital against any hospital employee or physician who refuses to transfer a patient with an emergency medical condition that has not been stabilized by the initial hospital, such as a patient with an emergent ectopic pregnancy, or a patient with an incomplete medical abortion.' The guidance also said that physicians' fear of violating state laws prohibiting abortion could not be used as the basis for transferring a patient. 'When a direct conflict occurs between EMTALA and a state law, EMTALA must be followed,' the guidance stated. EMTALA remains in place despite the change in the guidance. The Trump Administration did not explicitly advise hospitals that they could deny patients abortions in emergency situations. CMS did specify in the memo announcing the revocation that the Department of Health and Human Services may not enforce the interpretation in the Biden Administration's guidance that EMTALA preempts Texas' near-total abortion ban, pointing to court rulings that have temporarily blocked the guidance in the state. But abortion-rights advocates sharply criticized the Trump Administration's move, saying it endangers the lives of pregnant people. 'The Trump Administration would rather women die in emergency rooms than receive life-saving abortions,' Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a press release. 'In pulling back guidance, this administration is feeding the fear and confusion that already exists at hospitals in every state where abortion is banned. Hospitals need more guidance right now, not less.' 'We're making our health care professionals have to operate in a gray area when their work really needs to be clear,' says Monica Simpson, executive director of SisterSong, a reproductive justice collective. 'They're in the business of providing life-saving care to people on a daily basis, and they don't need to be put in a position where their decision making is compromised.' When that confusion happens, she says, 'people die.' Simpson says that, for states that have banned or restricted abortion, like her home state of Georgia, rescinding the Biden-era guidance is 'just going to make things worse.' 'It's making it incredibly scary for the American people and pregnant folks who would need access to emergency services,' Simpson says. 'People's lives are at stake.' Anti-abortion groups, meanwhile, celebrated the move. 'The Trump administration has delivered another win for life and truth – stopping Biden's attack on emergency care for both pregnant moms and their unborn children,' Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser said in a press release. She accused Democrats of creating confusion about people's access to care in medical emergencies, including miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies. 'In situations where every minute counts, their lies lead to delayed care and put women in needless, unacceptable danger,' she said. More than a dozen states have banned abortion in almost all cases or after six weeks of pregnancy, before many people even know they're pregnant. There have been many reports of pregnant people experiencing complications being turned away from hospitals in states that have banned abortion. Previously, the Biden Administration had sued Idaho over its near-total abortion ban, saying that the state's restrictions conflicted with EMTALA. In March, the Trump Administration dropped the lawsuit. Contact us at letters@

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store