2 questions:
* This time, is it paid? Is it billable? Is it part of the visit I pay for?
* What can I - as a patient - do to make this process easier?Depending on the issue, the patient may be needed to provide supporting paperwork, like previous diagnoses or treatment for providers. Other than that, not really, short of taking legal action.
If there’s a billing code for it, I’m not aware of it and frankly I shouldn’t have to use it. For providers, it’s part of their “administrative time” which used to be a full day of catching up. In most hospital or insurance-owned clinics, that admin day is gone. You now do this during your lunch break and anytime you can squeeze a phone call. Fun fact, in the hospital, these peer to peers are at the mercy of the insurance company and only give you 24-48hrs to do it, so the hell to the overworked provider and their schedule, again this is exactly what they want. A overworked provider who doesn’t have the energy to fight. Providers are so overworked, they no longer can you catch up on charts and hence why the patient-provider relationship has eroded and become so cold when you see your provider just typing away instead of focusing on you.
2. Fight. Appeal your denial. Make sure your provider does the same. Follow this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48126000#48128288 Can’t speak to all providers, but most of us are good people trying to do their best to help people. Few bad actors out there give us a bad name, but every field has good vs bad. It’s not right to make hasty decisions based on legitimately a few bad providers out there because of their greed, corruption, fraud, etc and lump everyone to prove they’re not fraudsters. Your basic primary care physician/NP/PA or surgeon isn’t the problem. It’s the conflict of interests of the health care industry, private equity groups, etc who create these issues, exploit the system and make it a breeding-ground for fraud/etc then complain that it needs to be fixed with more middle men.
Did they ding you for bad performance after a while? Your job was to maximize denials, not approvals.
By deeming something not medically necessary they are (in my opinion) effectively practicing medicine. If they aren't qualified to practice that specialty, or aren't acting in the patients interest we should really be getting malpractice suits on them and stripping medical licenses.
https://healthlaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Vanneman_Pr...
The overall situation is that the insurance company doesn't want to trust your doctor's judgement [0], so they insist on getting a second opinion about the care you might need to receive. That second opinion is still being performed by a licensed doctor who is supposed to be working in your interests - it's a straightforward practice of medicine the same as if you yourself were to go and seek out a second opinion.
[0] or really they want to play good cop / bad cop - remember "your" doctor themselves is essentially also an employee of the insurance company!
Feels like convenient lawcraft to wash the health plan employee’s hands of liability. I’m sure the prevailing popular opinion would be that this is practicing medicine.
Although on the words having meanings front, whatever is going on here is pretty clearly not insurance at this point; it'd be better just to honestly call it welfare rather than force people to redefine the word 'insurance'. It is hard to talk to people in the US about actual insurance now because they don't have a word for it any more. Politically redefining 'medicine' too would be a mistake, important conversations will become incoherent.
If I build you a house and tell you the roof trusses aren’t necessary, you’d be pretty peeved.
Maybe an even better analogy is that I live in a rented home and after I report some weird respiratory issues, an inspector finds black mold all over the place. The landlord refuses to fix the issue because "black mold is totally fine, bro" and I get really sick. I could maybe have moved out, but I kinda feel like the landlord is going to have a bad time here.
The issue with teeray's original comment is that they are saying someone who isn't practising medicine should be considered to be a medical practitioner. In fact, in this context, teeray is annoyed with them specifically because they didn't practice anything. Your analogy became irrelevant the moment it involved you doing anything.
> “X is or is not medically necessary” seems like a decision a medical professional should determine, no?
No, that is ridiculous. If I think I need to go to a hospital I'm going to go to the hospital. I don't need qualifications to work out something is medically necessary. I'm unlikely to be involved with the medical industry at all unless I've already personally determined it is medically necessary that I consult a doctor.
As a rule of thumb, patients have the final word on what they actually consider necessary. Literally anyone can have an opinion on the subject. Like, for example, an insurance worker. If the patient or the doctor is of a different opinion then they can go pay for the work themselves. It isn't that uncommon to have to go through 3 or 4 medical professionals to find one who agrees that work is necessary; I have a cancer story like that in my family.
This doesn't make any sense. They're not handing over money for fun, they are supposed to pay for the medical services the insurance is supposed to cover. And the only person qualified to decide if that medical service is appropriate is a doctor who specializes in the field of that specific area.
That might not be actually an option. Well the provider can do it for free, probably; but they may not be able to accept money for care that was denied coverage. A Medicare provider can charge patients for things outside the scope of Medicare, but generally can't charge for things in scope but deemed not medically necessary: ex if Medicare says 6 PT visits for whatever and you would like to have 8, you can't pay the provider for two more; you'd have to find a non medicare provider or come back with a fake moustache.
The reality is that this is the insurance companies trying to have their cake and eat it too. They actually want to be making a medical decision in denying coverage since it gives them a legitimate reason to do so, but want to avoid any liability if that decision was wrong.
Who decides this? You?
Should we allow everyone in the world who needs a procedure to receive one free and get ahead in line for Americans who need the same procedure? That's what the current climate looks like with unbridaled immigration under progressives.
These are hard questions. What's the answer?
Gating access to medical care is the job of the patient's PCP and or other doctor. If the care is truly, meaningfully rationed (like transplant organs and blood banks), there are triaged priority lists managed by medical organizations.
This claim is so outlandish that I'd like to see some sources for it.
This is pbs. In Canada they euthanasia an option for healthcare.
MAID is popular not because of lack of care but because Québécois values their autonomy and quality of life above being simply alive for the longest time possible.
And the scans are not scheduled months in advance. We complained that we were only informed of the date and time of the next scan a few days before it... The explanation was that they have a must not be done before and a must be done after dates but the actual scheduling is done just in time so urgent case are prioritized before routine care.
Two, that book may be a good idea:D
>> So, your doctor ordered a test or treatment and your insurance company denied it. That is a typical cost saving method.
OK, here is what you do:
1. Call the insurance company and tell them you want to speak with the "HIPAA Compliance/Privacy Officer" (By federal law, they have to have one)
2. Then ask them for the NAMES as well as CREDENTIALS of every person accessing your record to make that decision of denial.
By law you have a right to that information.
3. They will almost always reverse the decision very shortly rather than admit that the committee is made of low paid HS graduates, looking at "criteria words." making the medical decision to deny your care. Even in the rare case it is made by medical personnel, it is unlikely that it is made by a board certified doctor in that specialty and they DO NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW THIS!!
4. Any refusal should be reported to the US Office of Civil Rights (http://OCR.gov) as a HIPAA violation.
I suppose that if I did pay someone else to more effectively fight the insurance company for me the insurance would have to pay for more of the medical care I need, and would invest in new and better ways to fight back, and my insurance costs would increase even faster. I'm happy that for now at least I don't have to finance both sides of an arms race in order to get the healthcare I've already been paying for.
I suppose we're not yet at the point where this gates services for all -- but we're CERTAINLY at the point where hospitals refuse to help you if you can't show ability to pay up front.
Ugh, this is a total shitshow. None of this is what it should be. Profit motive has absolutely corrupted everything.
It certainly sounds like something that could work.
Example: I had an inpatient hospital stay where the payment assistant person was never available, never returned calls. Not while I was in the hospital for days, nor in the weeks afterwards.
Technically, I "left against medical advice", though the last doctor I spoke to agreed with what I was doing.
Over two days of trying to manage costs, then 36 hours of planning and asking to leave all basically got me nowhere and I had to kind of force walk out.
It will never happen.
This is largely what at least half the country wants.
“If I need to take a drug test to earn a check you better take one to get welfare.”
I’ve heard a working class person say this. I guarantee you the people who own defense contractors, the real welfare queens don't need to take a drug test.
Likewise, the horrific thought that someone unworthy might get free healthcare is appalling to half this country. They’d rather go without just to ensure *those people don’t get free healthcare.
This country doesn’t want to be fixed. It wants RFK to tell you to treat Autism with raw milk and sunshine.
Nothing much to do but try to find a civilized place to live
As a physician, I’ve had to speak to these so called “peers” in a peer to peer denials with both my clinic and hospital setting. They are usually people who aren’t physicians as a first line of their defense, ie therapist, nurses, etc. This weeds out the providers who either don’t care about the patient denial and blindly accept the denial, or patient has to take matters in their own hands just to get the care they need/deserve. Or worse, in the hospital that means the patient gets hit with a huge bill (already an insane number in the US even with insurance, so don’t get me started on this) or it gets delegated to another provider who has to deal with it. Quite often patients get denied medical and rehab services, esp after something debilitating like a stroke, trauma/accident, etc. and at that point the peer to peer is to weed the provider out. Usually someone will tell the patient you’ve been denied, either go home without the services they need or you fight it.
I fight it. Can’t count the number of times I’ve spoken to someone not in the field of medicine or if they are, not my field of medicine (both Family/Hospital Medicine). Often I’m fighting with an MD or “practitioner” who is some other field like a gynecologist about hospital medicine services or rehab. I’ve even had the pleasure of talking to a physical therapist and didn’t let me get a word in as we began the peer to peer. I now start of by asking for their credentials and field of speciality and demand a peer of my field to do the denying if they are so adamant about it “not being medically necessary”.
I have so much to say and could write a book about it. I just wish I had the money and connections to actually change the state of US of Corporate Medicine.