
Health Issues | |
| Daily Policy Digest Friday, August 03, 2001 | |
"Medical Necessity" is a Vague Standard |
A major aim of the Patients' Bill of Rights (PBOR) is to expand the ability of patients to sue their health plan when they are denied coverage for a "medically necessary" treatment and suffer harm as a result. The problem is that rather being a standard of care, "medical necessity" is a vague phrase with no generally accepted definition among insurers, doctors or patients.
A uniform definition might not help much. Medicare ostensibly provides uniform benefits, even though various insurers act as intermediaries. But a General Accounting Office study found wide variations:
Yet many health plan contracts specify that they will cover all "medically necessary" treatments. When patients sue on the basis of such vague promises, they win. If health plans spelled out in their contracts precisely what is covered, and how coverage guidelines are developed and revised, experts say consumers could compare what is actually offered, instead of vague promises open to differing interpretations. Source: E. Haavi Morreim (University of Tennessee), "The Futility of Medical Necessity," Regulation, Summer 2001, Cato Institute, 1000 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001, (202) 842-0200. For text For more on Managed Care |
Home | Support Us | All Issues | Social Security | Debate Central | Contact Us