Microdiscectomy Insurance Medical Necessity Criteria Are Inconsistent and Unnecessarily Restrictive.

IF 1.7 Q2 SURGERY International Journal of Spine Surgery Pub Date : 2024-03-04 DOI:10.14444/8521
Mohamed F Albana, Dylan R Chayes, Omar M Abuattieh, Kris E Radcliff
{"title":"Microdiscectomy Insurance Medical Necessity Criteria Are Inconsistent and Unnecessarily Restrictive.","authors":"Mohamed F Albana, Dylan R Chayes, Omar M Abuattieh, Kris E Radcliff","doi":"10.14444/8521","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Microdiscectomy for patients with chronic lumbar radiculopathy refractory to conservative therapy has significantly better outcomes than continued nonoperative management. The North American Spine Society (NASS) outlined specific criteria to establish medical necessity for elective lumbar microdiscectomy. We hypothesized that insurance providers have substantial variability among one another and from the NASS guidelines.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional analysis of US national and local insurance companies was conducted to assess policies on coverage recommendations for lumbar microdiscectomy. Insurers were selected based on their enrollment data and market share of direct written premiums. The top 4 national insurance providers and the top 3 state-specific providers in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania were selected. Insurance coverage guidelines were accessed through a web-based search, provider account, or telephone call to the specific provider. If no policy was provided, it was documented as such. Preapproval criteria were entered as categorical variables and consolidated into 4 main categories: symptom criteria, examination criteria, imaging criteria, and conservative treatment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 13 selected insurers composed roughly 31% of the market share in the United States and approximately 82%, 62%, and 76% of the market share for New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, respectively. Insurance descriptions of symptom criteria, imaging criteria, and the definition of conservative treatment had substantial differences as compared with those defined by NASS.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although a guideline to establish medical necessity was developed by NASS, many insurance companies have created their own guidelines, which have resulted in inconsistent management based on geographic location and selected provider.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>Providers must be cognizant of the differing preapproval criteria needed for each in-network insurance company in order to provide effective and efficient care for patients with lumbar radiculopathy.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: 5: </strong></p>","PeriodicalId":38486,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Spine Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11265489/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Spine Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14444/8521","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Microdiscectomy for patients with chronic lumbar radiculopathy refractory to conservative therapy has significantly better outcomes than continued nonoperative management. The North American Spine Society (NASS) outlined specific criteria to establish medical necessity for elective lumbar microdiscectomy. We hypothesized that insurance providers have substantial variability among one another and from the NASS guidelines.

Methods: A cross-sectional analysis of US national and local insurance companies was conducted to assess policies on coverage recommendations for lumbar microdiscectomy. Insurers were selected based on their enrollment data and market share of direct written premiums. The top 4 national insurance providers and the top 3 state-specific providers in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania were selected. Insurance coverage guidelines were accessed through a web-based search, provider account, or telephone call to the specific provider. If no policy was provided, it was documented as such. Preapproval criteria were entered as categorical variables and consolidated into 4 main categories: symptom criteria, examination criteria, imaging criteria, and conservative treatment.

Results: The 13 selected insurers composed roughly 31% of the market share in the United States and approximately 82%, 62%, and 76% of the market share for New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, respectively. Insurance descriptions of symptom criteria, imaging criteria, and the definition of conservative treatment had substantial differences as compared with those defined by NASS.

Conclusion: Although a guideline to establish medical necessity was developed by NASS, many insurance companies have created their own guidelines, which have resulted in inconsistent management based on geographic location and selected provider.

Clinical relevance: Providers must be cognizant of the differing preapproval criteria needed for each in-network insurance company in order to provide effective and efficient care for patients with lumbar radiculopathy.

Level of evidence: 5:

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
显微切除术保险医疗必要性标准不一致,限制性过强。
背景:对保守治疗无效的慢性腰椎间盘突出症患者实施显微椎间盘切除术的疗效明显优于持续的非手术治疗。北美脊柱协会(NASS)列出了具体标准,以确定选择性腰椎显微椎间盘切除术的医疗必要性。我们假设保险提供商之间以及与 NASS 指南之间存在很大差异:我们对美国全国性和地方性保险公司进行了横向分析,以评估有关腰椎显微切除术承保建议的政策。选择保险公司的依据是其投保数据和直接承保保费的市场份额。我们选择了全国排名前四位的保险公司以及新泽西州、纽约州和宾夕法尼亚州排名前三的特定州保险公司。保险承保指南可通过网络搜索、提供商账户或电话联系特定提供商获得。如果没有提供保单,则记录在案。预先批准标准作为分类变量输入,并合并为 4 个主要类别:症状标准、检查标准、成像标准和保守治疗:所选的 13 家保险公司约占美国市场份额的 31%,在新泽西州、纽约州和宾夕法尼亚州的市场份额分别约占 82%、62% 和 76%。与 NASS 的定义相比,保险公司对症状标准、成像标准和保守治疗定义的描述存在很大差异:结论:尽管 NASS 制定了确定医疗必要性的指南,但许多保险公司都制定了自己的指南,这导致了基于地理位置和所选医疗服务提供者的管理不一致:临床相关性:医疗服务提供者必须了解每家网络内保险公司所需的不同预先批准标准,以便为腰椎病患者提供有效、高效的治疗:5:
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
162
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Spine Surgery is the official scientific journal of ISASS, the International Intradiscal Therapy Society, the Pittsburgh Spine Summit, and the Büttner-Janz Spinefoundation, and is an official partner of the Southern Neurosurgical Society. The goal of the International Journal of Spine Surgery is to promote and disseminate online the most up-to-date scientific and clinical research into innovations in motion preservation and new spinal surgery technology, including basic science, biologics, and tissue engineering. The Journal is dedicated to educating spine surgeons worldwide by reporting on the scientific basis, indications, surgical techniques, complications, outcomes, and follow-up data for promising spinal procedures.
期刊最新文献
Beyond the Limits to Become a Leading Force in Global Spine Surgery: Present and Future of Spine Surgery in Asia-Pacific. Comparing ACDF Outcomes by Cervical Spine Level: A Single Center Retrospective Cohort Study. Editorial: Embracing Rasch Analysis for Enhanced Spine Surgery Outcomes-The Outsider's Viewpoint. Editors' Introduction: High-Value Endoscopic Techniques: Integrating Surgeon Skill and Experience in Spine Surgery With Rasch Analysis. Invited Commentary: Rasch Analysis and High-Value Spinal Endoscopy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1