>The popular image of a denial is an insurer overruling a doctor on whether a treatment is needed. That is the exception. Only about 5% of denied in-network claims were turned down because the care was deemed not medically necessary. The rest were administrative, for an excluded service, for a missing referral or prior authorization, or for a reason the insurer never specified.

When an insurance company denies a health claim overruling a doctor, it can be necessarily concluded that either:

1. somehow the company knows more about the patient's condition and the doctor is wrong

2. the doctor is defrauding the system and the insurance company caught the doctor cheating

3. the company is defrauding its clients.

There is no middle ground honestly, and yet "5% of denied in-network claims were turned down because the care was deemed not medically necessary".

This is absolutely crazy and evil. I would expect a few thousand cases annually and probably for million of cases you get denied what you pay for because "we detected your doctor is wrong and we're not paying".

>In fact the single largest category, 36% of denials, was an unexplained "other." A system that rejects tens of millions of claims a year and files more than 1/3 of those rejections under no stated reason is hard for an outsider, or a member, to audit.

I can't even imagine getting lifesaving care denied because of "other". I didn't know things were so grim in the USA and honestly now I'm kinda surprised that more people are not getting "Luigi'd".

It should be noted that they use the term “medically necessary” which is a very low standard.

There is also “medically reasonable”.

For example getting your teeth cleaned professionally is not medically necessary. But it’s medically reasonable.

I don’t want a health insurance that only does “Medically necessary” things.

> 5% of denied in-network claims were turned down because the care was deemed not medically necessary".

I think the truth is murkier than what you're providing. With the caveat that I am presenting a strong case here that likely isn't what occurs most of the time, consider this:

A person may require long-term therapy after an illness. There are data suggesting that beginning this therapy works better once you attain a certain level of clinical recovery in the hospital. There are also data suggesting that it's better to begin the long-term therapy as early as possible.

Both sets of data are, on their face, credible. There is no obvious reason to always believe one set of data over another. Reasonable people can make reasonable arguments to reasonable listeners for either case. Note that this does not mean that there is not a 'correct' interpretation for any given person's clinical situation!

So what does your insurance company favor? Obviously it will always favor the less expensive option, and there will be no way for them to be convinced otherwise because the underlying question is just not well-determined.

4. It's something that might help a bit, but the patient would still be fine without. Ie, a disagreement over what "necessary" means.

There is absolutely a middle ground? The healthcare system, like any system, has an incentive structure. Doctors are incentivized to prescribe treatments, because that's how they make money for themselves and their practice. Doctors are not angels sent from heaven, they're people like you and me, and they respond to incentives like you and me. It's also well known that people strongly prefer receiving treatment over not receiving treatment, even when the cost to their health of receiving that treatment outweighs the expected benefit! Given that people push their doctors into prescribing treatments, and doctors are incentivized to go along with it... you would obviously expect some proportion of prescribed treatments to not be medically necessary. 5% sounds about right. And the kicker is that denying these treatments improves health outcomes for the general population, because those medical resources can get routed to the people who actually need them. Every successful public health system has an opposing force built in to it to limit the spurious consumption of scare medical resources, because without such a force costs balloon and the system becomes unsustainable. Not to defend the US healthcare system of course, our cost problem is worse than anywhere else...

Having worked at companies that built software for health insurers, I have seen the "evil" you describe. From "hey, can we mine the claims database for suspected/confirmed familial relationships and look at possible diagnoses to assign risk profiles?" No, you can't. "Why not? It's in the database." Because it's federally illegal. "Oh. So you won't expose that data?" We won't.

In this case, two things:

The system decides on the initial denial at most insurers. And when a claims adjuster reviews, the system is presumed to be accurate, and the adjuster has to provide reasoning to overturn the system's denial (this is before the denial has been returned to the provider). It's not "assume the provider was correct", but "we've decided to deny it, give the system reasons why we shouldn't". And that person reviewing it is often an LPN (no shade thrown at LPNs, but they shouldn't be overriding physician decisions, doubly so given an absent history).

How this has affected me personally: I had, for most of my life, a severely deviated septum. I spent most of my life mouth breathing because I could barely pull enough air through my nostrils to make breathing that way not an active effort. I finally went to an ENT who confirmed, sure enough, an approximately ninety per cent deviation. "Great, so lets schedule surgery". ENT: "Slow down. First I have to prescribe you these two nasal sprays so that when you come back in four weeks and report no change, because to both our disappointment, the sprays didn't realign and open up the cartilage in your nose, then I can submit the pre-auth to your insurer and they won't immediately reject it." What a fucking joke.

> "we detected your doctor is wrong"

It's not even that your doctor is wrong, it's "our nurses/expert systems disagree with your doctor so we're not paying".

You ever been to an obstinate DMV? Dealt with an obstinate permitting office? They all act like this. They unilaterally concoct rules that make it hard for honest people doing honest things to get the outcomes they ought to.

Healthcare ain't no different. Bureaucracy gonna bureaucracy.