A common reason given for denials of health insurance coverage is a “lack of medical necessity.”  When an insurance company denies a claim on that basis, that means the insurer disagrees with the patient’s doctor and is substituting its own judgment in order to deny treatment the doctor deemed necessary for the patient’s well-being.  Medical necessity denials are especially prevalent in claims involving mental health disability, such as situations where sub-acute residential treatment is recommended to treat a variety of conditions such as substance use disorders, eating disorders, and adolescent behavioral disorders.  However, medical necessity denials occur with respect to all aspects of medical treatment.

Medical Necessity Letters Are Applicable to All Medical Claims

The way a patient can counter a denial based on a medical necessity determination is with a letter of medical necessity from the treating doctor explaining the treatment rationale and why other potential treatments are deemed less efficacious.  I recently collaborated with three other authors – Joseph Feldman, Eric Pleikun, M.D., and Cheryl Potts – to draft an article on letters of medical necessity which was published in the July 2021 issue of the Journal of Psychiatric Practice.  The article explains letters of medical necessity – their purpose and what needs to be included in such a letter, and includes a helpful guide to both patients and practitioners on how to draft a convincing letter of medical necessity.

Although the article is focused on psychiatric claims, the discussion in the journal article is applicable to all medical claims and offers guidance on how to counter an insurance company’s claim that a test, treatment, medication, or other healthcare-related service lacks medical necessity.

A copy of the full article published in the Journal of Psychiatric Practice may be found here.

Related Articles

ERISA Ruling Reinforces Claimant Right To Know Denial Basis

ERISA Ruling Reinforces Claimant Right To Know Denial Basis

One of the unique aspects of litigation under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act is that most courts limit the scope of their review to the claim record compiled during the course of the claim and prelitigation appeals and will not address new evidence that was not previously considered. […]

Congress Must Ban Discretionary Clauses In ERISA Plans

Congress Must Ban Discretionary Clauses In ERISA Plans

A recent Law360 guest article argued that discretionary clauses in employee benefit plans governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act serve a valuable function, and that if efforts to prohibit their inclusion are successful, the statute would be undermined […]