The Rheumatologist
COVID-19 News
  • Connect with us:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • Feed
  • Home
  • Conditions
    • Rheumatoid Arthritis
    • SLE (Lupus)
    • Crystal Arthritis
      • Gout Resource Center
    • Spondyloarthritis
    • Osteoarthritis
    • Soft Tissue Pain
    • Scleroderma
    • Vasculitis
    • Systemic Inflammatory Syndromes
    • Guidelines
  • Resource Centers
    • Axial Spondyloarthritis Resource Center
    • Gout Resource Center
    • Psoriatic Arthritis Resource Center
    • Rheumatoid Arthritis Resource Center
    • Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Resource Center
  • Drug Updates
    • Biologics & Biosimilars
    • DMARDs & Immunosuppressives
    • Topical Drugs
    • Analgesics
    • Safety
    • Pharma Co. News
  • Professional Topics
    • Ethics
    • Legal
    • Legislation & Advocacy
    • Career Development
      • Certification
      • Education & Training
    • Awards
    • Profiles
    • President’s Perspective
    • Rheuminations
    • Interprofessional Perspective
  • Practice Management
    • Billing/Coding
    • Quality Assurance/Improvement
    • Workforce
    • Facility
    • Patient Perspective
    • Electronic Health Records
    • Apps
    • Information Technology
    • From the College
    • Multimedia
      • Audio
      • Video
  • Resources
    • Issue Archives
    • ACR Convergence
      • Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Resource Center
      • Rheumatoid Arthritis Resource Center
      • Gout Resource Center
      • Abstracts
      • Meeting Reports
      • ACR Convergence Home
    • American College of Rheumatology
    • ACR ExamRheum
    • Research Reviews
    • ACR Journals
      • Arthritis & Rheumatology
      • Arthritis Care & Research
      • ACR Open Rheumatology
    • Rheumatology Image Library
    • Treatment Guidelines
    • Rheumatology Research Foundation
    • Events
  • About Us
    • Mission/Vision
    • Meet the Authors
    • Meet the Editors
    • Contribute to The Rheumatologist
    • Subscription
    • Contact
  • Advertise
  • Search
You are here: Home / Articles / Opinion: Insurance Companies Use Medically and Fiscally Irresponsible Formularies

Opinion: Insurance Companies Use Medically and Fiscally Irresponsible Formularies

October 14, 2015 • By Bruce Rothschild, MD

  • Tweet
  • Email
Print-Friendly Version / Save PDF
Opinion: Insurance Companies Use Medically and Fiscally Irresponsible Formularies

Image Credit: nito/shutterstock.com

Receipt of an unsolicited communication that a sweepstakes award has been won may con some people (especially, but not limited to, those underprivileged or undereducated as to legalities), but can’t fool all of the people all of the time. The names of the organizations and products involved are often marketing tool inventions, which imply special personal benefit, but neither actually warrantee nor subsequently provide delivery of the product that their advertisements suggest.

You Might Also Like
  • Are Insurance Companies’ Medication Directives Fiscally, Medically Questionable?
  • The Battle with Insurance Companies to Obtain Prescriptions
  • PRACTICE PAGE: The ACR Takes on Insurance Companies
Explore This Issue
October 2015
Also By This Author
  • Opinion: Why Rheumatologists Should Adhere to Standard of Care

Offerings with the suffix “for you” or “for life,” perhaps, should be suspect, especially when incorporated into the name of an insurance company’s medical insurance product. Less obvious are insurance products that call themselves by the same acronym as that utilized by a university in the region. One might perceive this as an attempt to suggest a relationship with that university and, thus, achieve additional insurance company credibility. When quality issues are subsequently raised (e.g., insurance company patient care directions), that university appears to quickly distance itself.

ad goes here:advert-1
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE

Practicing Medicine without a License?

Examination of insurance company utilization of formularies provides clear guidance as to whom they are committed. Off-label prescriptions are often denied reimbursement, unless the insurance company demands such use, the latter often in lieu of an alternative medication that is FDA approved for that indication. Insurance companies claim their formularies have been designed by physicians and pharmacists, but refuse to identify those individuals and provide no documentation of such derivation or even scrutiny.

When the fallacies of their formularies and the significant patient hazard and actual damage they impose are documented, insurance companies (at least in this area [Pennsylvania]) refuse to even acknowledge the querying communication. They refuse to make their medical director available to discuss the issue (be educated) and refuse to identify who actually constructed their formulary. They remain mute, even when presented with evidence-based rebuttal of their formulary direction mandates and expressed concern regarding how their promotion of illogical and unsafe medications appears to constitute insurance company practice of medicine without a license.

ad goes here:advert-2
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE

Even if the insurance company considers its formulary a way to reduce its payouts, this approach is still fiscally irresponsible. It demands utilization of medications or modalities that are ineffective, create additional morbidity or are actually inaccessible to the patient.

The associated mortality related to some of the formulary directions perhaps could be considered cost savings, if one were to consider the insurance company decisions as that diabolical. Some formulary demands might superficially appear reasonable, until one actually examines them. Typical is a promotion of medications with the side effect of producing drowsiness. This is a dangerous method and actually does not induce restorative sleep.1,2 It just reduces the patient’s cognitive abilities and increases their risk of falls and other injuries.

Appeals

Some insurance companies have an “appeals process” called “peer to peer.” Although one rarely does have the opportunity to discuss the issues with an actual peer (a physician in the same subspecialty), that “peer” typically indicates they don’t have the authority to deviate from the formulary and they and the insurance company refuse to provide access to those with the authority. Most communications involve the “peer” stating the party line, perhaps listening to an evidence-based rebuttal of the insurance company’s formulary directions, but then simply denying the request—saying it deviates from the required formulary. One intriguing example of this was when an insurance company “peer” recommended use of an antidepressant to treat arthritis—in a patient with ulcers—for whom the actual request was for celecoxib.

ad goes here:advert-3
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE

Pages: 1 2 3 | Single Page

Filed Under: Ethics, Legal, Professional Topics Tagged With: formularies, insurance, Legal, rheumatologyIssue: October 2015

You Might Also Like:
  • Are Insurance Companies’ Medication Directives Fiscally, Medically Questionable?
  • The Battle with Insurance Companies to Obtain Prescriptions
  • PRACTICE PAGE: The ACR Takes on Insurance Companies
  • Avoid Compliance Risks When Using Billing Companies

ACR Convergence

Don’t miss rheumatology’s premier scientific meeting for anyone involved in research or the delivery of rheumatologic care or services.

Visit the ACR Convergence site »

Rheumatology Research Foundation

The Foundation is the largest private funding source for rheumatology research and training in the U.S.

Learn more »

Meeting Abstracts

Browse and search abstracts from the ACR Convergence and ACR/ARP Annual Meetings going back to 2012.

Visit the Abstracts site »

The Rheumatologist newsmagazine reports on issues and trends in the management and treatment of rheumatic diseases. The Rheumatologist reaches 11,500 rheumatologists, internists, orthopedic surgeons, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, nurses, and other healthcare professionals who practice, research, or teach in the field of rheumatology.

About Us / Contact Us / Advertise / Privacy Policy / Terms of Use

  • Connect with us:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • Feed

Copyright © 2006–2022 American College of Rheumatology. All rights reserved.

ISSN 1931-3268 (print)
ISSN 1931-3209 (online)

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.