Health insurers promise to improve coverage reviews that prompt delays and complaints
UnitedHealthcare, CVS Health's Aetna and dozens of other insurers said Monday that they plan to reduce the scope of health care claims subject to prior authorization, standardize the process and expand the number of responses done in real time.
Prior authorization means insurers require approval before they'll cover medical care, a prescription or a service like an imaging exam. Insurers say they do this to guard against care overuse and to make sure patients get the right treatment.
But doctors say the practice has grown in scope and complication, leading to frequent care delays. The fatal shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in December prompted many people to vent their frustrations with coverage issues like prior authorization.
Dr. Mehmet Oz called prior the practice 'a pox on the system' that hikes administrative costs during his Senate confirmation hearing in March to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Insurers said Monday that they will standardize electronic prior authorization by the end of next year to help speed up the process. They will reduce the scope of claims subject to it.
They also plan to expand the number of real-time responses and ensure medical reviews are done for denied requests.
Researchers say prior authorization has grown more common as care costs have climbed, especially for prescription drugs, lab testing, physical therapy and imaging exams.
'We're sort of trapped between care being unaffordable and then these non-financial barriers and administrative burdens growing worse,' said Michael Anne Kyle, an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania who studies how patients access care.
Nearly all customers of Medicare Advantage plans, the privately run version of the federal government's Medicare program, need prior authorization for some services, particularly expensive care like hospital stays, the health policy research organization KFF found in a study of 2023 claims. The study also found that insurers denied about 6% of all requests.
Dr. Ashley Sumrall of Charlotte, North Carolina, says she has seen an increase in prior authorizations required for routine exams like MRIs. An oncologist who treats brain tumors, Sumrall said these images are critical for doctors to determine whether a treatment is working and to plan next steps.
Doctors say delays from requests that are eventually approved or coverage rejections can harm patients by giving a disease time to progress untreated. They also can spike anxiety in patients who want to know whether their tumor has stopped growing and if insurance will cover the scan.
'There's a term that we use called 'scanxiety,' and it's very real,' said Sumrall, a member of the Association for Clinical Oncology's volunteer leadership.
Different forms and varied prior authorization policies also complicate the process. Sumrall noted that every insurer 'has their own way of doing business.'
'For years, the companies have been unwilling to compromise, so I think any step in the direction of standardization is encouraging,' she said.
___
The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Science and Educational Media Group and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Earnings Teleconference Moves to Earlier Time on July 29
July 25, 2025--(BUSINESS WIRE)--As previously announced, UnitedHealth Group will release its second quarter 2025 financial results on Tuesday, July 29, 2025, before the market opens. The start time for the teleconference has moved to 8:00 a.m. ET, 45 minutes earlier than previously announced, to allow more time for discussion of results with analysts and investors. This call will be webcast on the Investor Relations page of the company's website ( The replay will be available through August 12 on the website. About UnitedHealth Group UnitedHealth Group (NYSE: UNH) is a health care and well-being company with a mission to help people live healthier lives and help make the health system work better for everyone through two distinct and complementary businesses. Optum delivers care aided by technology and data, empowering people, partners and providers with the guidance and tools they need to achieve better health. UnitedHealthcare offers a full range of health benefits, enabling affordable coverage, simplifying the health care experience and delivering access to high-quality care. Visit UnitedHealth Group at and follow UnitedHealth Group on LinkedIn. View source version on Contacts Investors: investor_relations@ Media: uhgmedia@ Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
UnitedHealth Group Stock Sinks as Company Confirms DOJ Investigations
UnitedHealth Group (UNH) on Thursday confirmed several reports in recent months that the Department of Justice is probing aspects of its business, sending shares lower in recent trading. The company said it has "proactively reached out to the Department of Justice after reviewing media reports about investigations into certain aspects of the Company's participation in the Medicare program," and is now "complying with formal criminal and civil requests from the Department." The health insurer's stock has been battered by a number of reports this year that authorities are investigating UnitedHealth's Medicare Advantage program. The company has denied claims that it has pressured physicians to bill for certain conditions that could get it larger payouts from the government. The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment. UnitedHealth stock also fell this year after its first-quarter results fell short of estimates and the insurer lowered its profit forecast, and after its CEO departed in May. UnitedHealth is scheduled to report earnings before the market opens next Tuesday. The health insurer's stock was down over 3% Thursday afternoon. Shares have lost more than 40% of their value this year, and in May closed at $274.35, their lowest point since early 2020. This article has been updated since it was first published to reflect more recent share price values. Read the original article on Investopedia
Medscape
9 hours ago
- Medscape
Medicare at 60: Good for Doctors, Patients?
Sixty years ago, Congress passed legislation that created Medicare . In 1966, its first year of implementation, there were 19.1 million enrollees. Almost a decade later, enrollment had grown to 22.5 million. Today, 68.8 million Americans have Medicare coverage, with about half enrolled in Advantage plans. The original idea for this insurance program was even bigger, with President Harry Truman endorsing universal coverage in 1945. As Medicare turns 60, Medscape convened an expert panel to discuss the successes — and shortcomings — of this landmark insurance program. Jen Brull, MD: For everyone on the panel, how might Medicare use AI (artificial intelligence) more generally over the next 50 years? Jonathan Gruber, PhD: As with many things, there's a right level of prior authorization, and we need to let data inform that. We need to be collecting a lot of data on who's using prior authorization, how it's being used, and how productive it is. And we need to recognize that the right answer is not "zero" or "every single visit." It's somewhere in between. We need to be putting more resources into studying that and figuring out what the right level is. I want to take a slightly more optimistic view of AI in two senses. One is, I think that right now a fundamental problem in healthcare is that not all people are practicing at the top of their professional abilities. We have doctors taking blood pressure in some places; doctors should never take a blood pressure. We have nurses who are unable to give pills in some places, and nurses should be perfectly qualified to give pills. I think AI can give us more confidence in allowing people to practice at the very top of their professional abilities. The other is long-term care. Elder loneliness is a huge problem in our country; proper long-term care is a huge problem. The attacks on immigration in this country — and there are attacks — are going to make the problems worse, because many of the caregivers in the United States are immigrants. My hope is that AI can play a productive role in helping provide care for our nation's elderly and disabled. So I have a slightly optimistic view of how AI can maybe make our healthcare system better. Improving Diagnosis Norman Ornstein, PhD: Let me give a slightly optimistic view. I have regularly read in the health and science sections in the Washington Post and The New York Times these stories about people who have horrendous health issues that go on for years that are undiagnosed or misdiagnosed until somebody realizes it's some rare thing that they had never encountered before, or you find a physician who'd encountered it once and they managed to deal with it and cure it. You can imagine AI being an enormous boon to physicians, allowing them to put in symptoms that somebody's having and a little bit of history and end up finding things that siloed physicians otherwise would not see. On the other hand, you can see AI being used, and sometimes misused, by insurance companies for billing purposes or to try to find ways to save money, but also to substitute for physicians — whether that will be a good thing or a bad thing. Claudia M. Fegan, MD: I think Jon made some very important points, that there are opportunities to use AI to assist physicians in diagnostic approaches. It also would be very beneficial in terms of identifying patients. We have a lot of patients who we are not touching, and there are preventive measures that we could take. Given a certain family history, given the vital signs, their weight and their background, you could anticipate certain problems that are not addressed. And I think that can push us to make better, data-driven decisions. It's an advantage that AI can provide, and we can easily put it in the hands of clinicians who are on the front line to make good decisions about patients going forward. But I think the threat here is insurance companies who may misuse it for other purposes, whether to deny coverage to people or to try to avoid expensive treatments that might be appropriate. Brull: Certainly, as one of the two primary care specialists in this group, I would say I'm very optimistic about AI and I see that it could be a team member. I also often say that I've never seen a chatbot give a hug to a patient. And as far as I know, patients don't just come to the doctor to plug their finger in and find out what's wrong. They come to partner, and so I think all of us see optimistic futures let's start with our two nonphysicians on the panel for this question. A Public Good Do you think Medicare has been good to the American people financially? Doctors complain all the time about reimbursement rates, but do you think those rates are reasonable? Let's start with you, Dr Ornstein. Ornstein: I think physicians in many instances have found ways around the lower reimbursement rates, which has often led to many unnecessary tests or other procedures so that they can get compensated adequately. I am very fearful, going back to a point that I made earlier, if these sequesters, this is the statutory Pay-As-You-Go plan that requires big cuts in Medicare because of the deficits being run up in the reconciliation bill, they limit them to 4% a year. But you know, that could even cut reimbursement rates more, and that will create a big problem. It may mean more physicians who decline to take Medicare, and that is going to create a burden for an awful lot of people along the way. Gruber: In terms of your specific question, what has it meant for the financial health of Americans, it has unambiguously been incredible. Amazing studies show that the introduction of Medicare led to massive reductions in the financial uncertainty facing elderly Americans with their medical spending. Has it been good for doctors? Unambiguously. It has been a huge boon to their business. One thing we know from every health economic study is, if you lower prices, more people use more medical care. Medicare did that. They lowered prices and people use more medical care. It's been a huge boon to the medical industry. I think the big question going forward is how to set the rates and in a way that balances our fiscal needs against the needs to have qualified physicians participate in Medicare. Quite frankly, it seems like the direction of that is clear: Medicare overpays subspecialists and underpays primary care doctors. And that's because the panel that set Medicare rates has been politically captured by the subspecialists. I find it hard to believe that if orthopedists made $700,000 instead of $1 million per year, they'd quit Medicare. But it is plausible that a primary care physician making $150,000 or $250,000 might actually quit Medicare. These are people who could go into other lucrative professions. I want to second Claudia's call for more data. We need to really understand how physicians will respond to reimbursements, and we need to set reimbursements in a way which balances these two needs. Ornstein: Let me add one thing. Just do a thought experiment. What if we'd never had Medicare? What if we didn't have any program with government support for a population of older Americans? The number of people who would've died prematurely, the number who would've used up every portion of their assets trying to cover just basic medical care, would've been enormously high. Society would've been so much poorer overall if there had been no Medicare. And if we see assaults on these programs, we're going to go back to having bankruptcies and people who won't get the care because they can't afford it. Brull: Dr Fegan, as a physician, what are your thoughts? Fegan: I think Medicare has made a tremendous difference. And if you just want to look at the data on life expectancy for Americans compared to other wealthy nations: If you look at the top 17 wealthiest countries in the world, we are really near the bottom up until age 65. And the dramatic change that occurs after 65 in terms of life expectancy in the United States, compared to other wealthy nations, is that we shoot to the top. And this is because Medicare has provided access to care for people who didn't have access to care. For physicians, and it really depends on the population of physicians you're talking about, it guaranteed that they were going to be compensated for patients that they may have been taking care of without appropriate compensation. The majority of hospitals in this country would not survive without Medicare. The majority of patients in hospitals in the United States are Medicare recipients. I would say that prior to the Affordable Care Act, 80% of our outpatients were unfunded and 56% of our inpatients were unfunded. Now we bounce between 60% and 65% of all our patients being funded, which made a tremendous difference for us. Medicare has made being a primary care physician feasible, whereas previously it was a financially precarious situation for many of them, in terms of being compensated for the services that they were providing. They might provide services for a chicken or for a free meal, as opposed to knowing that they would be paid at the end of the day, and they would know the rate they were going be paid. The challenge with Medicare is that it pays different rates within the city. I live in Chicago, and if you have an office downtown, the rate you receive is different from if you're on the South Side or West Side. We have to look at how we make those kinds of decisions. What We Pay Our Doctors Brull: Dr Ornstein, legislation in 1993 set targets for spending growth in physician services but did not account for inflation in practice costs. Why can't Congress seem to take care of the so-called doc fix? Ornstein: I think there are two reasons. One is obviously money. It means a lot more money, and they have been at least cognizant of the problems with the solvency of the program, looking at the long run. The second is that doctors have really not been a very effective lobby. To circle back to Medicare Advantage, I'd say the prime reason reimbursement rates are 130% or whatever, when they were supposed to be 90%, is because of the effectiveness of the insurance lobby with Congress. Congress could have stepped in and done something about that. If you look even, for example, at the Affordable Care Act, it was actually then-Senator Al Franken [D-Minn.] who said, 'If you're providing coverage under the Affordable Care Act, 85% of the money that you take in has to go back to patients.' There are ways for Congress to deal with this, but they respond to the lobbying that they get and the effectiveness that they've seen. And frankly, physicians have not been very effective. The physician community was extremely effective in keeping Medicare from being enacted for decades when the [American Medical Association] was an extraordinarily powerful lobby, until the Great Society and these enormous numbers of Democrats coming into Congress in 1964 enabled it to happen. But, if we're looking at weakness in lobbying efforts, physicians are in the top 10. More Pay Cuts Brull: Another one for you, Dr Ornstein. The recently passed budget reconciliation bill includes cuts in government spending. The Congressional Budget Office projected that this will include about $500 billion in mandatory reductions in Medicare spending between 2026 and 2034, or about a 4% reduction in payments to hospitals and physicians. Congress could act to block the cuts. Do you project that they will do so? And if they do not, what may be the effect on physicians and the program over the next decade? Ornstein: It's kind of interesting. We've had these so-called pay-go rules — pay-as-you-go — in one form or another since 1990 and the budget agreement that then-President George Herbert Walker Bush enacted with Congress, which was highly controversial because it violated the 'Read my lips: no new taxes" pledge. It has worked reasonably effectively, at least at different times. But in the past, when we have seen pay-go implemented, Medicare is one of the prime elements that gets these cutbacks or sequesters. Whenever it's happened, Congress has then stepped in and ameliorated it because they saw that it was going to have a bad effect. I'm not 100% sure it's going to happen this time. And the fundamental reason is that we know Republicans, certainly going back at least to the Newt Gingrich era in the House, have wanted to take over the Medicare program. Medicare as we know it would not exist if they had had their way. It would be in some other form. The sequesters don't allow cuts in Medicaid, but they have these big cuts in Medicare, and I think it's a dicey proposition. But let's just note, Jen, that if we do see these cuts, they will hit the reimbursement rates for hospitals and for physicians. Just start with hospitals for a minute, where we know the Medicaid cuts are going to have a devastating effect, especially on rural hospitals that have already been reeling even without these cuts. What we know is that if any hospital closes, it puts enormous pressure on other hospitals, and the other hospitals are not going to get the money. They're going to cut back on services. We've seen in Atlanta, for example, where an urban hospital had to close, and every other hospital found that their emergency room services were suddenly just completely overloaded. This system looks like it's separate parts private care, Medicare, Medicaid, but they're all interrelated, and it's like a set of dominoes. If one begins to fall, the others are affected by it. These cuts would be catastrophic if they are allowed to take place, and whether enough Republicans will join with Democrats to ameliorate that, which of course then means bigger deficits, we don't know for sure.
