SEARCH · Search PubMed
Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
The information in this issue brief is based on a 50--state survey and a recent literature review. The Health Policy Tracking Service recognizes the complexity of this issue and discourages the use of this document as a sole resource on the issue.
Patients with a suspicion of bone damage following an industrial or traffic accident are often referred for bone scintigraphy as part of an occupational health or medical insurance investigation. The aim of this study was to assess the contribution and the potential role of bone scintigraphy compared with X-ray investigations in the aforementioned situation. To this end we evaluated 70 consecutive patients referred for bone scintigraphy during 1996 and 1997 by occupational health or medical insurance physicians. The most common reasons for referral were the exclusion of occult fractures of hands and feet, whiplash injuries, reflex sympathetic dystrophy or avascular necrosis, or the differentiation between an old and a recent vertebral fracture. X-rays were only available for comparative review of 53 patients, so only those were analysed. The results of bone scintigraphy were compared with X-rays, and their contribution and potential role in occupational health or medical insurance investigations assessed. In 31 out of the 53 patients investigated, bone scintigraphy findings concurred with X-rays as to the number and location of abnormalities. For 19 of the 53 patients, bone scintigraphy showed clinically relevant additional foci when compared with X-rays, predominantly involving lesions to hands/wrists and feet/ankles. Among these 19 patients, scintigraphic diagnoses were subsequently confirmed in ten cases by means of X-ray or computed tomography. In four patients, supplementary radiological investigations revealed no abnormalities, and in five patients no further investigations were undertaken. Finally, in three of the 53 patients, X-rays revealed bone damage (burst fractures) whilst the corresponding bone scintigraphy was negative, thus excluding recent injury. In conclusion, in 22 patients, representing 42% of the cases analysed, bone scintigraphy was conclusive compared with X-ray imaging in the final diagnosis and in this way in detecting occult or excluding active bone damage after a traffic or industrial accident. This makes bone scintigraphy a useful investigation in situations where a full or partial disablement claim has to be confirmed, extended or terminated.
Ravencraft v. UNUM Life Insurance Company of America, 212 F.3d 341 (6th Cir. 2000): Although ERISA does not explicitly require it, the Sixth Circuit and most of the others require that a participant pursue all plan remedies before bringing suit. An action against a plan or plan fiduciary will be dismissed if the participant fails to exhaust the administrative remedies available to it under the plan unless he or she can show that pursuing those remedies would be futile, such as where the available remedies are inadequate or unfair. If a participant's case is dismissed solely because of the failure to follow the procedural steps for review under the plan, the dismissal should be without prejudice so that the participant can file suit again, if necessary, after he or she goes back to pursue the remedies available under the plan.
There has been concern that health plans unfairly deny claims for mental health services. This study examines a unique Minnesota program that resulted from a legal settlement. An independent panel reviews all mental health service denials in the state's three largest health plans. Our study analyzed every case file (N = 4717) the panel reviewed from January 2002 to August 2005. This unique dataset provides insight into health plan behavior. The findings show that the panel reversed only 2.9% of denied claims, suggesting inappropriate denials were rare. However, the panel decisions have made important improvements in contract language and patient communications.
This study attempts to determine whether the implementation of mandatory review of Medicare Part B claims for medical necessity has resulted in physicians submitting fewer medically unnecessary claims. After summarizing the literature on the effectiveness of various methods for changing physician practices, we compare the rate at which physicians submitted medically unnecessary claims before and after HCFA imposed mandatory review screens. We find that, consistent with expectations from the literature, the screens are only marginally effective (at best) in reducing the rate at which medically unnecessary claims are submitted. We make some suggestions for lowering this rate.
"U.S. Supreme Court Deals Blow to HMOs," trumpeted the CNN headline on June 20, 2002. In Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Debra C. Moran, the United States Supreme Court ruled that state laws requiring external review of health plan/HMO decisions regarding medical necessity of covered services did not violate the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act and were therefore enforceable. If the media is to be believed, requiring HMOs to give second opinions, i.e., external review, is a major blow. However, a review of the case and the fact that the decision was based on a 5-4 vote reveal that lasting lessons from the decision are probably fewer than the press would have one believe.
Managed care incentives to reduce costs have also resulted in incentives to deny care. Anecdotes concerning managed care denials of care have led to a consumer outcry for protection either through the use of procedural due process or by the establishment of patient rights that would include appeal and grievance protections. This Article reviews the procedural protections of constitutional due process, the Consumer Due Process Protocol, and the Patient Bill of Rights. The Article then extensively discusses the availability of these procedural protections in various public and private forums. The discussion of public forums includes proposals contained in recent national legislative initiatives. The author then reviews relevant federal and state law, as well as Uniform Law proposals. Next, the Article analyzes the protections provided by accreditation agencies, dispute resolution organizations, professional organizations, and health insurers. Finally, the author recommends criteria to be used to determine whether a procedure is fundamentally fair.
In this era of decreased health resources and the strong influence of third-party payers, the financial advantages of ambulatory electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) should be well recognized by all concerned parties. However, to a large degree, third-party payers are only minimally aware of the availability and potential cost savings associated with this treatment modality. Also, documentation has been problematic, because reviewers unfamiliar with ECT have not been able to find the necessary data even when they are present in the chart. This article illustrates some of these problems and how they have affected our ambulatory ECT program.
An important area for reduction in health care costs is incorrect coding of physician services. Current software systems provide high-volume, consistent claims review with substantial savings for payers. The third generation of such systems offers comprehensive coverage across clinical disciplines, across individual claims, and across an entire history of claims. It is likely that these systems will be useful to both nontraditional payers, such as physician groups and hospital-based networks, and traditional payers seeking to reduce costs and enhance competitiveness.
Three types of programs are beginning to capture the imagination of employers concerned about issues related to mental health care and its costs: utilization review, particularly via psychiatric PPOs and case management; Employee Assistance Programs; and substance abuse testing. The spread of these programs, the promise and problems they present and their effectiveness (where measured on a wide scale) are documented here, based on studies by a variety of researchers.
This final rule specifically encourages State Medicaid agencies to whithhold program payments to providers without first granting administrative review where the State agency has reliable evidence of fraudulent activity by the provider. These changes serve both to reinforce and strengthen existing State Medicaid agency responsibilities in the withholding of program funds, and to bring Medicaid program regulations in line with existing Medicare policy in this area.
The so-called malpractice crisis of the mid-1970s alerted physicians to the need for legislative involvement in order to achieve needed malpractice tort reform. There has been a positive effort to modify the medical liability situation in each of our 50 states. A review of this legislative activity from 1975 through 1977 is presented. It is anticipated that a new malpractice crisis may develop during the early 1980s. Actuarial data now being collected plus the effects of such innovations as arbitration, pretrial screening panels, collateral source rules, and periodic funding of malpractice claims may provide an equitable approach to any future malpractice tort reform.
This article examines the issues associated with the current managed care delivery system for certification of mental health services, including pain management. Inconsistencies in dispositions having impacts upon patient care appear to be inherent in the current peer review certification system. Issues related to public assistance clients will be given particular attention. After introducing the issues, this article reviews the literature to survey what facets have been the subjects of academic research and reflection. It then presents case examples of inconsistencies, followed by recommendations for a model with checks and balances. In conclusion, creation of an independent monitor group is recommended.
Your clients' Medicare coverage is affected both by national coverage determinations and by what are known as local medical review policies (LMRPs). In this brief we outline the difference between these two policies. We also go into more depth about LMRPs--how they work, and what your clients need to do to appeal decisions based on LMRPs.
A physician should not allow financial criteria to influence his decision to discharge a patient from the hospital despite pressures that may exist to do so. If injury to the patient is attributable to a premature discharge approved by a physician, the physician can expect to be held accountable. Under Wickline, a physician should protest to a third-party payor whose prospective utilization review decision would result in the withholding of necessary medical care. Such protests should be documented. Where a patient requires continued hospitalization, it would be advisable to so inform the patient and the hospital administrator so that arrangements for care in an appropriate facility can be made.
Claims against anesthesiologists for eye injuries were analyzed as part of the ASA Closed Claims Project. Eye injury occurred in 3% of all claims in the database (71 of 2,046). The payment frequency for eye injury claims was higher than that for non-eye injury claims (70% vs. 56%; P less than or equal to 0.05). The median cost of eye injury claims was less than that for other claims ($24,000 vs. $95,000; P less than or equal to 0.01). Two distinct subsets were identified. The first was characterized by corneal abrasion during general anesthesia (25 of 71 claims; 35%). Claims for corneal abrasion were characterized by low incidence of permanent injury (16%) and low median payment ($3,000). Reviewers were able to identify a mechanism of injury in only 20% of claims for corneal abrasion. The second subset of eye injury was characterized by patient movement during ophthalmologic surgery (21 of 71; 30%). Blindness was the outcome in all cases. Sixteen of the claims involving movement occurred during general anesthesia, and 5 occurred during monitored anesthesia care. The median payment for claim involving movement was 10 times greater than for non-movement claims ($90,000 vs. $9,000; P less than or equal to 0.01). Anesthesiologist reviewers deemed the care rendered in the general anesthesia "movement" claims as meeting standards in only 19% of claims. From the perspective of patient safety, as well as risk management, these data suggest two specific needs: research directed at better understanding of the etiology of corneal abrasion and clinical strategies designed to assure patient immobility during ophthalmic surgery.
All providers contemplating managed care contracts, both individual and institutional, should carefully review the health plans' internal administrative review and dispute resolution procedures before making their decisions, especially if the contracts will represent significant income for the provider. While there may be judicial recourse in California and in other states that adopt the holding in Delta Dental, in other states providers may well be held to the health plans' internal administrative decisions as a matter of contractual agreement. Health plans should also review their own policies and procedures for adequacy under applicable state law. The health care community will not know the full extent of Delta Dental's implications until later cases area decided, but for now it seems certain that another wave of change in this area is just beginning.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' 1998 Socioeconomic Survey of Fellows included questions, developed in collaboration with the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health, to assess the impact of managed care on respondents' practices and patients. Participation in managed care is extensive among obstetricians and gynecologists (ob/gyns), especially in commercial managed care plans. The greatest areas of dissatisfaction for physicians were administrative workload, external review of clinical decisions, and promptness of payment. More research is needed to determine the impact of administrative burdens, restrictions on access to ob/gyns, and denial of coverage on women's receipt of timely and appropriate services.