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

Severance Pact Forecloses Right To Pursue Disability Claim Later

Severance Pact Forecloses Right To Pursue Disability Claim Later

Lawyers who represent employees in severance negotiations should be aware and take heed of the recent New York federal court ruling in Schuyler v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 2023 WL 2388757 (S.D. N.Y., March 7, 2023). That case illustrated a dangerous pitfall that may unwittingly result in unintended unfortunate consequences based on the court’s finding that an employee’s release of her employer also waived the employee’s right to sue her disability insurer. […]

The Important Role Of Contra Proferentem In ERISA Cases

The Important Role Of Contra Proferentem In ERISA Cases

The outcome of Employee Retirement Income Security Act cases often turns on how courts interpret the meaning of specific benefit plan terms. The recently decided case of Stein v. Paul Revere Life Insurance Company, issued by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on March 16, illustrates what happens when plan terms are unclear and can have different meanings. […]

Courts Should Follow 8th Circ. On ERISA Procedure Rules

There is no provision in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 mandating that claimants must exhaust internal appeals as a precondition to filing a lawsuit to challenge a claim denial. Nonetheless, most courts have required claimants to exhaust prelitigation appeals before their cases may be heard in court. […]