Proposal to amend prior authorization process returns to Mississippi Capitol
After a veto from Governor
Lawmakers are set to take another swipe at legislation aimed at increasing restrictions on insurance companies' use of "prior authorization" requirements in the 2024 session.
Action began on Tuesday when
"Prior authorization" requires physicians to obtain approval before providing patients with certain non-emergency treatments. Insurance companies argue that prior authorization helps ensure ordered treatments are medically necessary and that more affordable alternatives have been considered. They contend the process is important to reducing healthcare and health insurance premium costs.
Physicians say prior authorization is often applied arbitrarily by insurance companies' staff who are ill-equipped to assess the appropriateness of the physician's proposed course of treatment. According to a 2021
Some requests of changes to the process include:
* a requirement that insurance companies provide a list of all treatment requiring prior authorization;
* an acceleration of the timeframe insurers have in which to respond to a prior authorization request;
* the development of a web portal to standardize submission and consideration of requests.
In 2023, lawmakers passed similar legislation nearly unanimously to address what
At the time, Reeves commended lawmakers for attempting to correct the issues within the prior authorization process but found that within the legislation there could be unintended negative consequences. Reeves outlined the basis for his veto, including:
* Disagreeing with the designation of the
* Disagreeing with the mandate that health insurers publicly disclose what services require authorization, process for obtaining it, and clinical review criteria.
* Expressing concerns with telling insurance providers the qualifications of the people they must hire to evaluate prior authorization requests within a specified time frame.
Moving into 2024,
Meetings were also hosted between representatives from the Governor's office, Medicaid, managed care companies, insurance providers, the
"
It is unclear at this time when that legislation will be filed.
"We had complaints from both sides on this issue. We had complaints from medical doctors that often times the approvals took too long to receive," said Michel. "We also had complaints that often times the doctors were talking to someone clerical who was not qualified to discuss the knowledge involved in the procedure they were wanting to perform."
Michel indicated that insurance companies complained that doctors were not correctly filling out paperwork to allow for efficient review.
In an attempt to rectify issues for both parties, the legislation seeks to set up a web portal. Under SB 2140, creation of the portal will be the responsibility of insurance providers, who would have until
New, tighter timelines, would be placed on treatment approval under Michel's legislation. For urgent care, a decision would be required within 24-hours of submission, and for non-urgent care, within five days.
Under the existing prior authorization procedure, if a treatment is denied, a physician can appeal the decision. SB 2140 would require that insurance companies provide a medical representative who is knowledgeable of the health issue in controversy to consult on the appeal.
"We don't want an orthopedic issue being determined by a cardiologist or an OBGYN. We want a cardiologist to be able to speak directly to another knowledgeable cardiologist on the subject," said Michel.
Insurers would also be required to report statistics to the
If any parties in play violate the requirements of the new process, they would be fined up to
Insurance Commissioner
Commissioner Chaney said his office believes the bill could help eliminate many of the clerical issues in the current process, but questions how it will impact Medicare and Medicare Advantage plans, which frequently change their requirements.
In the 2023 legislation vetoed by Reeves, the state health plan was not included.
Currently, the state's health plan prefers generic to name brand because of the cost. He says it could have a negative fiscal impact if physicians are now allowed to specify the name brand.
"I do think the legislation could have done a better job on clarifying when a doctor prescribes a drug, that they can't specify name brand or off brand," said Chaney.
Michel said he agreed that if a more cost-effective drug is available, it should be used, as it is in the current state plan.
-- Article credit to
HDFC Life Inspires Families to Believe and Support Children in Their Journey of Pride, Through Its Latest Brand Campaign [Business Wire India]
The Cigna Group Reports Strong Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2023 Results, Raises 2024 Adjusted EPS Outlook, and Increases Dividend
Advisor News
Annuity News
Health/Employee Benefits News
Life Insurance News