Lawmakers, health insurance companies at odds
However, the second interim meeting of the
Led by Sen.
Doctors, other health care providers and medical facilities have complained that prior authorization is an approval system gone astray, increasingly consuming their time and resources while delaying and blocking care for patients.
Insurance companies have argued that they are serving as financial stewards for their members while using the process to help control the quality of health care.
During their April meeting in
"We all worked very hard to come to some consensus on things we could come to consensus on and there were some things we couldn't and frankly we ran out of time," said
Among the concerns representatives for Mountain Health CO-OP and
The draft law would also require companies to consult with doctors if they were considering denying care because it was not a "medical necessity," an extra step that the representatives said would lengthen treatment approval times.
As the bill is currently written, insurance companies would have five days to approve or deny non-urgent treatment requests and 72 hours for urgent requests.
"It will lead to an increase in holding the line of just denying things because you've got to hit those timelines," said
The companies also objected to a "gold card" system that would allow doctors to skip prior authorization requests if their treatment plans were approved by an insurance company at least 80% of the time.
"We don't use prior authorizations as mechanisms not to pay for care," said
She added that prior authorization approvals ensure that insurance companies use limited resources effectively, patients receive evidence-based and necessary treatment, and health care providers are paid.
The insurance companies found some sympathy.
But others expressed skepticism, aligning themselves with the medical groups who spoke.
"We still have a situation where we're not providing enough follow-up care without all the confusion of waiting and delays," Dockstader said. "I would hope you'd have an understanding that we also want to protect the money - it's other people's money and we want to protect that - but we also want to get to a point where people are not waiting for good health care," he added.
Both supported the bill as it was written, saying they thought it only needed minor changes.
"It feels like much of the conversation this morning has been the resistance to reform prior authorization because insurance companies have aggressively moved into the role of policing safe medical practice," Bush said.
"That isn't an appropriate mechanism or utilization of insurance.
That's not their role." Boley refuted the claim that prior authorization serves to protect patients and medical providers.
"We've heard from the insurance companies that this isn't done for cost containment," he said. "That's an absolute fallacy." During the committee's first April hearing, testimony from doctors, hospitals and medical groups swayed the lawmakers as they spoke of the burden of prior authorization.
Dr.
"My expectation is that they're going to say, 'No,'" he testified.
"I'm not even sure that they read them." Lawmakers once again gravitated toward the medical groups Thursday.
When asked if they thought insurance companies should be required to have a shorter turnaround time for approvals, the majority voted in favor of updating the bill so that companies have 24-hour deadlines for urgent treatment and 48-hour deadlines for non-urgent care.
Dock stared and Penn will once again lead a working group to find more agreement between the insurance companies and medical groups ahead of the health committee's next meeting in
But for now, the lawmakers have the approval of at least one side.
"As far as I'm concerned, we're ready to roll," Boley said, a statement to which Sen.
John Novak Named President of ICW Group Insurance Companies
Marc Whitehead & Associates Proudly Announces Its First-ever Partners
Advisor News
Annuity News
Health/Employee Benefits News
Life Insurance News