Doctors With Histories of Big Malpractice Settlements Now Work for Insurers

P. Rucker, D. Armstrong, & D. Burke

Propublica.org

Originally published 15 Dec 23

Here is an excerpt:

Patients and the doctors who treat them don’t get to pick which medical director reviews their case. An anesthesiologist working for an insurer can overrule a patient’s oncologist. In other cases, the medical director might be a doctor like Kasemsap who has left clinical practice after multiple accusations of negligence.

As part of a yearlong series about how health plans refuse to pay for care, ProPublica and The Capitol Forum set out to examine who insurers picked for such important jobs.

Reporters could not find any comprehensive database of doctors working for insurance companies or any public listings by the insurers who employ them. Many health plans also farm out medical reviews to other companies that employ their own doctors. ProPublica and The Capitol Forum identified medical directors through regulatory filings, LinkedIn profiles, lawsuits and interviews with insurance industry insiders. Reporters then checked those names against malpractice databases, state licensing board actions and court filings in 17 states.

Among the findings: The Capitol Forum and ProPublica identified 12 insurance company doctors with either a history of multiple malpractice payments, a single payment in excess of $1 million or a disciplinary action by a state medical board.

One medical director settled malpractice cases with 11 patients, some of whom alleged he bungled their urology surgeries and left them incontinent. Another was reprimanded by a state medical board for behavior that it found to be deceptive and dishonest. A third settled a malpractice case for $1.8 million after failing to identify cancerous cells on a pathology slide, which delayed a diagnosis for a 27-year-old mother of two, who died less than a year after her cancer was finally discovered.

None of this would have been easily visible to patients seeking approvals for care or payment from insurers who relied on these medical directors.

The info is here.

The ethical implications in this article are staggering.  Here are some quick points:

Conflicted Care: In a concerning trend, some US insurers are employing doctors with past malpractice settlements to assess whether patients deserve coverage for recommended treatments.  So, do these still licensed reviewers actually understand best practices?

Financial Bias: Critics fear these doctors, having faced financial repercussions for past care decisions, might prioritize minimizing payouts over patient needs, potentially leading to denied claims and delayed care.  In other words, do the reviewers have an inherent bias against patients, given that former patients complained against them?

Transparency Concerns: The lack of clear disclosure about these doctors' backgrounds raises concerns about transparency and potential conflicts of interest within the healthcare system.

In essence, this is a horrible system to provide high quality medical review.

Yale Changes Mental Health Policies for Students in Crisis

William Wan

The Washington Post

Originally posted 18 JAN 23

Here are some excerpts:

In interviews with The Post, several students — who relied on Yale’s health insurance — described losing access to therapy and health care at the moment they needed it most.

The policy changes announced Wednesday reversed many of those practices.

By allowing students in mental crisis to take a leave of absence rather than withdraw, they will continue to have access to health insurance through Yale, university officials said. They can continue to work as a student employee, meet with career advisers, have access to campus and use library resources.

Finding a way to allow students to retain health insurance required overcoming significant logistical and financial hurdles, Lewis said, since New Haven and Connecticut are where most health providers in Yale’s system are located. But under the new policies, students on leave can switch to “affiliate coverage,” which would cover out-of-network care in other states.

In recent weeks, students and mental advocates questioned why Yale would not allow students struggling with mental health issues to take fewer classes. The new policies will now allow students to drop their course load to as low as two classes under special circumstances. But students can do so only if they require significant time for treatment and if their petition is approved.

In the past, withdrawn students had to submit an application for reinstatement, which included letters of recommendation, and proof they had remained “constructively occupied” during their time away. Under new policies, students returning from a medical leave of absence will submit a “simplified reinstatement request” that includes a letter from their clinician and a personal statement explaining why they left, the treatment they received and why they feel ready to return.

<cut>

In their updated online policies, the university made clear it still retained the right to impose an involuntary medical leave on students in cases of “a significant risk to the student’s health or safety, or to the health or safety of others.”

The changes were announced one day before Yale officials were scheduled to meet for settlement talks with the group of current and former students who filed a proposed class-action lawsuit against the university, demanding policy changes. 

<cut>

In a statement, one of the plaintiffs — a nonprofit group called Elis for Rachael, led by former Yale students — said they are still pushing for more to be done: “We remain in negotiations. We thank Yale for this first step. But if Yale were to receive a grade for its work on mental health, it would be an incomplete at best.”

But after decades of mental health advocacy with little change at the university, some students said they were surprised at the changes Yale has made already.

“I really didn’t think it would happen during my time here,” said Akweley Mazarae Lartey, a senior at Yale who has advocated for mental rights throughout his time at the school. 

“I started thinking of all the situations that I and people I care for have ended up in and how much we could have used these policies sooner.”

The info is here.

COVID Medical Coverage is Over: Insurers are restoring deductibles and co-pays, leaving patients with big bills

Christopher Rowland

The Washington Post

Originally posted 18 Sept 21

Here is an excerpt:

But this year, most insurers have reinstated co-pays and deductibles for covid patients, in many cases even before vaccines became widely available. The companies imposed the costs as industry profits remained strong or grew in 2020, with insurers paying out less to cover elective procedures that hospitals suspended during the crisis.

Now the financial burden of covid is falling unevenly on patients across the country, varying widely by health-care plan and geography, according to a survey of the two largest health plans in every state by the nonprofit and nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation.

If you’re fortunate enough to live in Vermont or New Mexico, for instance, state mandates require insurance companies to cover 100 percent of treatment. But most Americans with covid are now exposed to the uncertainty, confusion and expense of business-as-usual medical billing and insurance practices — joining those with cancer, diabetes and other serious, costly illnesses.

(Insurers continue to waive costs associated with vaccinations and testing, a pandemic benefit the federal government requires.)

A widow with no children, Azar, 57, is part of the unlucky majority. Her experience is a sign of what to expect if covid, as most scientists fear, becomes endemic: a permanent, regular health threat.

The info is here.

Groundbreaking Court Ruling Against Insurer Offers Hope in 2020

Katherine G. Kennedy
Psychiatric News
Originally posted 9 Jan 20

Here is an excerpt:

In his 106-page opinion, Judge Spero criticized UBH for using flawed, internally developed, and overly restrictive medical necessity guidelines that favored protecting the financial interests of UBH over medical treatment of its members.

“By a preponderance of the evidence,” Judge Spero wrote, “in each version of the Guidelines at issue in this case the defect is pervasive and results in a significantly narrower scope of coverage than is consistent with generally accepted standards of care.” His full decision can be accessed here.

As of this writing, we are still awaiting Judge Spero’s remedies order (a court-ordered directive that requires specific actions, such as reparations) against UBH. Following that determination, we will know what UBH will be required to do to compensate class members who suffered damages (that is, protracted illness or death) or their beneficiaries as a result of UBH’s denial of their coverage claims.

But waiting for the remedies order does not prevent us from looking for answers to critical questions like these:

• Will Wit. v. UBH impact the insurance industry enough to catalyze widespread reforms in how utilization review guidelines are determined and used?

• How will the 50 offices of state insurance commissioners respond? Will these regulators mandate the use of clinical coverage guidelines that reflect the findings in Wit. v. UBH? Will they tighten their oversight with updated regulations and enforcement actions?

The info is here.

What you may not know about online therapy companies

Pauline Wallin
The Practice Institute
Originally posted August 19, 2018

Here is an excerpt:

In summary, while platforms such as Talkspace and BetterHelp provide you with ready access to working with clients online, they also limit your control over your relationships with your clients and in how you work with them.

Before signing on with such platforms, read the terms of service thoroughly. Search online for lawsuits against the company you're considering working with, and read reviews that are not on the company's website.

Also, talk with the risk management consultant provided by your malpractice insurer, who can alert you to legal or ethical liabilities. For your maximum legal protection, hire an attorney who specializes in mental health services to review the contract that you will be signing. The contract will most likely be geared to protecting the company, not your or your license.

The info is here.

Study suggests why more skin in the game won't fix Medicaid

Don Sapatkin
Philly.com
Originally posted July 19, 2017

Here is an excerpt:

Previous studies have found that increasing cost-sharing causes consumers to skip medical care somewhat indiscriminately. The Dutch research was the first to examine the impact of cost-sharing changes on specialty mental health-care, the authors wrote.

Jalpa A. Doshi, a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania’s Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, has examined how Americans with commercial insurance respond to cost-sharing for antidepressants.

“Because Medicaid is the largest insurer of low-income individuals with serious mental illnesses such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder in the United States, lawmakers should be cautious on whether an increase in cost sharing for such a vulnerable group may be a penny-wise, pound-foolish policy,” Doshi said in an email after reading the new study.

Michael Brody, president and CEO of Mental Health Partnerships, formerly the Mental Health Association of Southeastern Pennsylvania, had an even stronger reaction about the possible implications for Medicaid patients.

The article is here.

Canada passes genetic ‘anti-discrimination’ law

Xavier Symons
BioEdge
Originally published 10 March 2017

Canada’s House of Commons has passed a controversial new law that prevents corporations from demanding genetic information from potential employees or customers.

The law, known as ‘Bill S-201’, makes it illegal for companies to deny someone a job if they refuse a genetic test, and also prevents insurance companies from making new customer policies conditional on the supply of genetic information. Insurance companies will no longer be able to solicit genetic tests so as to determine customer premiums.

Critics of the bill said that insurance premiums would skyrocket, in some cases up to 30 or 50 per cent, if companies are prevented from obtaining genetic data. And Prime Minister Justin Trudeau labelled the proposed legislation “unconstitutional” as it impinges on what he believes should be a matter for individual provinces to regulate.

The article is here.

The Republican health care bill makes no sense

Ezra Klein
Vox.com
Originally posted March 9, 2017


Here is the conclusion from the video:

In reality, what I think we’re seeing here is Republicans trying desperately to come up with something that would allow them to repeal and replace Obamacare. This is a compromise of a compromise of a compromise aimed at fulfilling that promise. But “repeal and replace” is a political slogan, not a policy goal. This is a lot of political pain to endure for a bill that won’t improve many peoples’ lives, but will badly hurt millions.

Read further analysis here and stories of legislative history here.