Cargando…

Preauthorization Inconsistencies Prevail in Reduction Mammaplasty

BACKGROUND: Despite evidence documenting the physical and psychological benefits of breast reduction, third-party payer approval remains a cumbersome process. The objective of this study was to assess differences in medical necessity criteria for reduction mammaplasty among US insurance carriers whi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Boyd, Carter J., Hemal, Kshipra, Cohen, Joshua M., Daar, David A., Gwin, John, Zupko, Karen, Karp, Nolan S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10602495/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37900990
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000005361
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Despite evidence documenting the physical and psychological benefits of breast reduction, third-party payer approval remains a cumbersome process. The objective of this study was to assess differences in medical necessity criteria for reduction mammaplasty among US insurance carriers while analyzing trends in claim denials and appeals. METHODS: The medical necessity criteria for reduction mammaplasty were retrieved from seven large health insurance carriers. Data were extracted from each policy, including claim requirements for approval. Additionally, prospective data on claims and denials submitted from January through August 2022 were collected from The Auctus Group, a medical consulting firm. RESULTS: All the policies have been updated since January 2020. Five of the seven policies specifically listed what documentation was required for preauthorization approval, with five third-party payers requiring photograph documentation. Policies required documentation of one to three symptoms lasting from 6 weeks to 1 year. All companies reported a tissue resection estimate threshold, but cutoffs varied. Of 380 reduction mammaplasties performed, 158 (41.6%) received a denial on initial insurance submission. Considering appeals, a total of 216 denials were reviewed with an average of 1.37 denials per patient. Of the 158 initial denials, 104 (65.8%) of these were from claims that received preauthorization. In 12 cases, third-party payers stated that no prior authorization was necessary yet still denied the claim. CONCLUSIONS: Wide variability exists in medical necessity criteria for reduction mammaplasty policies among major insurance carriers. These nuances introduce inefficiencies for practices contributing to high denial and appeal rates while delaying surgical care for patients.