Insurance GRRRRRRRRRRR!

Valve Replacement Forums

Help Support Valve Replacement Forums:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Creed3

VR.org Supporter
Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2002
Messages
856
Location
Virginia
I just received a letter from my insurance company. They are denying me an INR testing machine. The docs for the insurance company have reviewed my request and denied it because I don't fall into the high risk catagory. Their quote is below.

"Coverage is provided for a service or supply which is medically necessary. Medically necessary means health care services that a Physician, exercising prudent clinical judgment, would provide to a patient for the purpose of preventing evaluating, diagnosing or treating an illness, injury, disease or its symptoms, and that are (a) in accordance with generally accepted standards of medical practice (generally accepted standards of medical practice are those standards based on credible scientific evidence published in peer reviewed medical literature generally recognized by the relevant medical community); (b) clinically appropriate, in terms of type, frequency, extent, site, duration, and considered effective for the patient's illness, injury, or disease; and (c) not primarily for the convenience of the patient, physician, or other health care provider, and not more costly than an alternative service or sequence of services at least as likely to produce equivalent therapeutic or diagnostic results as to the diagnosis or treatment of the patient's illness, injury or disease."
"A Clinical Claim Review Medical Director, has reviewed your request, including all supporting documentation submitted to date. After this review, we have determined that the proposed INRation Monitoring System is not eligible payment. Aetna considers home INR testing medically necessary durable medical equipment for selected high-risk members who, because of severity of illness, instability of control, inability to travel, inability to access home services or other unusual complicating factors, are judged to be candidates for this approach to care. Based on the documentation submitted, the patient does not meet any of the above criteria."

Has anyone else had their initial request denied and then later approved after appeal? If an appeal doesn't do any good I am thinking of waiting until next year to try again. We will have a different insurance next year. The insurance we have right now is such a pain to work with but then again aren't they all. My girls pediatrician won't even work with them anymore. Actually there isn't a pediatrician in the immediate area that works with them anymore.
Hopefully sometime in the near future I will be able to get an INR monitoring system. I'll just keep trying.

Take Care!
Gail
 
The criteria that are used by almost all insurance companies is medical necessity and inappropriateness of alternate methods. The machine is medically appropriate for mechaniccal valve patients (they can reference the Medicare guidelines for the support data - in almost all cases if Medicare finds it OK, then commercial insurers will follow suit). As to alternatives, lab testing is cheaper for the insurer, so they prefer that option. Your prescribing physician will need to file an appeal on your behalf (or at least give you a note) stating that due to your family requirements for frequent travel (you do travel a lot for job, family, etc - right? How much is frequent??) and your propensity to faint at blood draws (this one I do almost every time - embarrasing), regular lab draws are not appropriate for your situation. Having your recent lab draw values all over the place also shows need for tighter control which is a factor as well.
The key is to keep getting them to nail down the specifics of why they won't cover the unit (other than they can save costs if you give up and go away) and hit each reason with a why your case fits the exception. It took me about 6 months of calls and faxes to get the unit covered - don't give up!
 
Home monitors--tax deductible in USA?

Home monitors--tax deductible in USA?

Hello Creed3

GRRR to the insurance company.

Are medical appliances and supplies tax deductible?

That would certainly help.
 
At the very bottom of this post is Aetna?s policy regarding home testing devices. It is dated 2004. I do not know if there are any published reports since then that speak to improved outcomes from home testing. You did not mention in your previous post whether you have any factors that are judged serious by Aetna. Do you difficulty with control? What is clear is that if you have a mechanical valve, that in itself meets the criteria of Medicare for home testing I have copied the following from hemosense?s web site. Note that the reference to private insurers is for OTHER INDICATIONS (which probably means atrialfibrillation or pulmonary thromboembolus). If you meet Medicare criteria, it is hard for the insurance company to deny medical criteria that have been promulgated by the federal government. Your appeal at this point should stress the fact that you meet the Medicare criteria. However, Aetna?s lawyers have approached this with the statement that ?coverage may be mandated by applicable legal requirements of ? CMS ?.

Payment for services furnished on or after July 1, 2002, Medicare will cover the use of home prothrombin time INR monitoring for anticoagulation management for patients with mechanical heart valves on warfarin. The monitor and the home testing must be prescribed by a physician and the following patient requirements must be met:
. Must have been anticoagulated for at least three months prior to use of the home INR device;
. Must undergo an educational program on anticoagulation management and the use of the device prior to its use in the home; and
. Self testing reimbursement with the device is limited to a frequency of once per week.
Private Insurance_Some private insurers may also cover for other indications where medical necessity is shown and other requirements are met. Call your local insurance representative for details.



The following is from Aetna.
Clinical Policy Bulletins

Number: 0173
Subject: Prothrombin Time Home / International Normalization Ratio (INR) Testing Systems


Important Note

This Clinical Policy Bulletin expresses Aetna's determination of whether certain services or supplies are medically necessary. Aetna has reached these conclusions based upon a review of currently available clinical information (including clinical outcome studies in the peer-reviewed published medical literature, regulatory status of the technology, evidence-based guidelines of public health and health research agencies, evidence-based guidelines and positions of leading national health professional organizations, views of physicians practicing in relevant clinical areas, and other relevant factors). Aetna expressly reserves the right to revise these conclusions as clinical information changes, and welcomes further relevant information. Each benefit plan defines which services are covered, which are excluded, and which are subject to dollar caps or other limits. Members and their providers will need to consult the member's benefit plan to determine if there are any exclusions or other benefit limitations applicable to this service or supply. The conclusion that a particular service or supply is medically necessary does not constitute a representation or warranty that this service or supply is covered (i.e., will be paid for by Aetna) for a particular member. The member's benefit plan determines coverage. Some plans exclude coverage for services or supplies that Aetna considers medically necessary. If there is a discrepancy between this policy and a member's plan of benefits, the benefits plan will govern. In addition, coverage may be mandated by applicable legal requirements of a State, the Federal government or CMS for Medicare and Medicaid members. CMS's Coverage Issues Manual can be found on the following website: http://cms.hhs.gov/manuals/pub06pdf/pub06pdf.asp.




Policy


Aetna considers prothrombin time home testing units medically necessary durable medical equipment for selected high-risk members who, because of severity of illness, instability of control, inability to travel, inability to access home services or other unusual complicating factors are judged to be candidates for this approach to care.

Background

Prothrombin time home testing systems are portable, battery-operated instruments for the quantitative determination of prothrombin time from finger-stick whole blood. These products are designed to aid in the management of high-risk patients taking oral anticoagulants. They require considerable patient training and compliance to be useful. Self-testing and/or self-management by the patient using home international normalization ratio (INR) monitors represent another model of care with the potential for improved outcomes as well as greater convenience. Self-testing may provide a convenient opportunity for increased frequency of testing when deemed necessary. The use of the same instrument may increase the degree of consistency in instrumentation, and self-testing provides the potential for greater knowledge and awareness of therapy which may lead to improved compliance. There is, however, insufficient data comparing the effectiveness of patient self-testing and self-management using a home INR monitor to care provided by an anticoagulation management service. Ansell, et al. (2001) explained:

Although a growing number of studies indicate the superiority of patient PST [patient self-testing] or PSM [patient self-management of dose adjustments] over UC [usual care, i.e., patients managed by their usual physicians], there is little evidence comparing them to care provided by an AMS [anticoagulation management service (i.e., anticoagulation clinic)]. PST and PSM require special patient training to implement, and therapy should be managed by a knowledgeable provider. A definitive recommendation cannot yet be made as to the overall value of PST or PSM.

The above policy is based on the following references:

1. No authors listed. Home monitoring for warfarin users. Health News. 1999;5(3):5.
2. No authors listed. A new approach to monitoring anticoagulation therapy: Testing prothrombin time at home. Harv Heart Lett. 1999;9(5):2-4.
3. Ansell J, Hirsh J, Dalen J, et al. Managing oral anticoagulant therapy. In: Sixth ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic Therapy. Chest. 2001;119:22S-38S.
4. Poller L, Keown M, Chauhan N, et al. European Concerted Action on Anticoagulation--comparison of fresh plasma and whole blood multicentre ISI calibrations of CoaguChek Mini and TAS PT-NC whole blood prothrombin time point-of-care monitors. Thromb Haemost. 2002;87(5):859-866.
5. Nowatzke WL, Landt M, Smith C, Wilhite T, et al. Whole blood international normalization ratio measurements in children using near-patient monitors. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2003;25(1):33-37.
6. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Prothrombin time (INR) monitor for home anticoagulation management (#CAG-00087N). National Coverage Analysis (NCA). Baltimore, MD: CMS; September 18, 2001. Available at: http://cms.hhs.gov/ncdr/memo.asp?id=72. Accessed May 13, 2003.



Property of Aetna Inc. All rights reserved. Clinical Policy Bulletins are developed by Aetna to assist in administering plan benefits and constitute neither offers of coverage nor medical advice. This Clinical Policy Bulletin contains only a partial, general description of plan or program benefits and does not constitute a contract. Aetna does not provide health care services and, therefore, cannot guarantee any results or outcomes. Participating providers are independent contractors in private practice and are neither employees nor agents of Aetna or its affiliates. Treating providers are solely responsible for medical advice and treatment of members. This Clinical Policy Bulletin may be updated and therefore is subject to change.

April 20, 2004

Document Utilities

http://www.aetna.com/cpb/data/PrtCPBA0173.html





Copyright 2001-2004 Aetna Inc. Web Privacy Statement | Legal Statement | Privacy Notices | Member Disclosure
 
Gail:

Al Lodwick may know of more recent studies that show the superior benefits of home-testing over going to a clinic for those with mechanical valves.

One thing to point out to any insurer is that warfarin patients with mechanical valves may have to test more frequently than once weekly, should an Rx be prescribed that interacts with warfarin.
 
Same here.

Same here.

My insurance (Health Advantage) finally came back and said basically the same thing. Denied b/c I have access to a doctor and hospital. Nevermind that it takes one to two hours of waiting each time to get my blood drawn and I usually have to call them to see what my INR was. And nevermind that I have no good veins left and my hands are bruised for 2 weeks after the draw and I have a full time job, two small children with lots of activities, and I live 30 minutes away. No big deal to them. It's just ridiculous.
 
Dinah:

Post-op, I was being tested weekly. I also have a mechanical in the mitral position, requiring a higher INR than for an aortic replacement. This helped build a case for my insurance approving a home testing unit. I also travel frequently, mostly weekends.

We need to find those RECENT studies that show that home-testing keeps warfarin patients in range better than going to the doctor's office or for a lab draw. You are less likely to go for a test; clinics & doctor's offices won't be recommending weekly testing. You let one week slide by, then another, etc., then you find that you're way out of range and are a candidate for a stroke.

I know of one woman with a St. Jude mitral valve who only goes every 3 months. She's also retired, I think, and leads a pretty sedentary life. Which makes it easy to manage her warfarin -- we've heard that from Al Lodwick many times.
It's active people -- like most of us, who work, have hobbies, travel, etc. -- who are more difficult to manage. Thus, the need for having your own home testing machine and doing it yourself.
 
My brother-in-law's insurance is Aetna. He is on Coumadin for a-fib. QAS told him that they would pursue a home testing unit for him, but that Aetna always denied home testing. Now that makes it sound like they don't have any instances that they consider high-risk.

Can you call and speak to the doctor that denied it? A nurse handled my approval for BC/BS and she was the one that had the say-so. She actually was the one very instrumental in getting my approval for a new machine.

When I got my first machine there were 2 important factors that my doctor promoted - I didn't have a stable INR and needed to test weekly and I had 2 children that made it difficult for me to go and sit in a lab waiting to get my blood tested.

It's worth a try continuing to pursue it. Some insurance companies count on people not pursuing a denied claim or benefit.
 
Qas

Qas

I am going to ask my doctor to prescribe the QAS one and see if QAS can get it approved. At first they said they would pay out of network (70%) and then they changed it to "DENIED" b/c of the reason I stated above. It's just so frustrating. I got that letter and I just wanted to scream. Who do they think they are taking that right away from me? It should be my choice not what they think I should be doing. They don't know and I really don't think they care.

I am now going once a month to get my INR checked and they wanted me to come once every two months and I told my nurse I just couldn't do that b/c I have to know it's ok. I would feel much better if I could do it myself. That would cut a little bit of stress from my life, and give me a piece of mind.
 
I second what Karlynn said, and I work in HR/benefits. Appeal the denial, get your prescribing doctor to espouse the benefits of home testing for you, push the fact that you have kids, pull Al's articles off his site about home testing and the benefits, etc., etc., anything that would even remotely fall under any of the categories they list for denial. How far are you from the testing clinic/office? Remoteness is the only reason my husband's was approved.

One of the fallacies in benefits is that if something is denied, then it's set in stone. Fight it and you stand a good chance of getting it overturned. Same thing with medical bills that are old or have been submitted to the insurance company after their "billing period" has expired. Bull. Plain and simple bull.

They don't count on you coming back at them - go for it!
 
Thanks!

Thanks!

Thanks everyone for all of the replies. I am sorry it has taken me so long to get back to this thread but I ended up hurting my back on Monday and am now just starting to get back to normal. My doc had me on Tylenol with codeine and flexeril. Needless to say that had me out of it for a little while.
I really want to appeal this and keep trying for the monitor through aetna but our family will have a different insurance starting January of 2007. I'm just wondering if I should just wait and try to get it through the new company. The new insurance is going to be Southern Health. Anyone have an experience dealing with them? My husband and I are always having trouble with aetna. He just spend this evening on the phone with them trying to get them to pay an er visit for my daughter when she ran a fever of 106 degrees. That was back in November. Aetna just seems to make everything a hassel. My husband's employer only offers two plans, one is Aetna and the other is Southern Health. The main reason we continue to stay with aetna is because if anything happens and I need to go back to Cleveland, I have the flexibility of going anywhere I want. With Southern Health I am limited to the state of Virginia. We are switching next year because there are no pediatricians in our area that will take aetna. I just get so frustrated with insurances. I never really dealt with them that much, my husband always has and he has complained about them for years. I am only now starting to realize all the fighting it takes to get an insurance company to pay for anything. Well, sorry about the ranting and raving here. Thanks again for all of your help.

Take Care!
Gail
 
It would seem that it's a big sign that Aetna isn't well-liked when pediatricians won't take it. Hopefully you will have better luck with Southern Health. We have Empire BC/BS and have not had nearly the problems some people have had with it. (knock wood) United Healthcare was a big hassel when it came to home testing. They originally paid for 100% of the machine, then things got sticky when they kept insisting they had an in-network provider for the supplies - and they didn't.
 
BC/BS Denial

BC/BS Denial

Does anyone have any experience with BC/BS of LA? I was just informed that my request for home monitoring has been denied on appeal. I originally appealed April 4th. and they denied and told me I could appeal so I did. I had my card. send a letter and I wrote a letter listing all the reasons I needed home monitoring and they told me they would reply within 60 days, well they just did. They will not even cover the testing strips, they say the anticoagulant monitor is considered a contract exclusion for "convenience items" and, therefore not covered by this policy even though I have a $25,000" Durable Medical Equipment" clause in my policy. I wonder if they consider a wheel chair a "convenience" item also???

They also told me that for any adverse decision on appeal, I have the right to file a civil action under Section 502(a) of ERISA. Does anyone know what this is and how I should proceed? Since I have a $25K Durable Medical Equipment clause in my policy I certainly think a monitor should be covered along with the test strips.

I actually think that the majority of the reason for denial is that QAS quoted a price of approx. $2,500.00 plus the test strips and my lab only charges $17.00 per test. I guess I can see the reasoning behind this thought.

Another topic, I found a person on Ebay that sells a new INRatio for $325.00 plus two boxes of strips (48/box) for $229.00 each bringing the total purchase price to $783.00, sounds pretty good if I have to pay out of my pocket. I'm assuming that the reason for having to buy so many strips is that he states that he can only sell to a physician or physician office. I sent him a PM and he told me I wouldn't have a problem. He says his company is the largest distributor in the midwest and stock the cassettes but doesn't say the name of his company although I'm sure I could find out if I asked. What do you all think?

Thanks,
Amy
 
If you're covered under an ERISA then the employer has negotiated a "special" BS contract with all sorts of addon's and cutout's. It very may well be that if a medically suitable alternative is available, they can deny all your appeals. (From a provider stand point, that's why I hated ERISA plans - looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, but wasn't a duck.)
That's a REAL good price, I've been paying about $260 for a box of 48, and its about time to get a refill. I never thought of looking on eBay.
For $325 for the unit, I could have saved 10 months of wrangling with the insurance (actually the supplier - the insurer was easy) and worked out about the same with the deductable. Depending on how far you travel and if there's an office visit co-pay for the testing, you might be ahead in short time by going out-of-pocket for the tester.
 
Gail,
Any luck with Aetna?

You probably already have seen this link, but just in case...
I found following link at Medicare site. It details the rational behind the Medicare coverage of the home testing equipment.

https://www.cms.hhs.gov/mcd/viewdecisionmemo.asp?id=72

It did mention the non-coverage decision from 1997 and said it was based on the review of research data available back then.
It decided not to cover in 1997 because

1. The home prothrombin test does not resemble the home glucose monitor in that the patient does not take any direct action;
2. Patients can easily obtain the test from a local testing center or from their physician's office, and patients will have to contact their physicians anyway;

Looks like #2 above is the often used by the insurance companies to deny the coverage (the infamous "home testing machine being "convenience" item)
It seems the Medicare said the same thing in 1997 but now is covering it because they found the patient home testing and self management is better than getting it tested at the lab even if it is easy and not that inconvenient to get it from the lab.
We have 4 labs within 20 minute distance, but it takes at least 2 hours in the morning (driving + 1.5 hr on average wait to get the draw) then 15-20 minute phone calls to get the lab to fax us the darn result (even if the doc wrote on the order, fax the result to patient)

It reviewed many more recent research data from multiple sites/countries.
They only used articles published in peer-reviewed journal.
The data showed that patient home testing / managment is not just equivalent to the lab testing, but is actually better, higher TTR.


Decision Summary

The studies reviewed demonstrated that home prothrombin monitoring significantly improve time in therapeutic range for select groups of patients, compared to testing done in physician offices, or anticoagulation clinics. Increased TTR leads to improved clinical outcomes, with reductions in thromboembolic and hemorrhagic events.
...
...
....
Summary of Evidence

In reviewing the literature, we decided to ask the following questions:

Is the use of home INR monitor for testing PT at least equivalent to lab testing such as an coagulation clinic/physician office testing with respect to: (a) time in therapeutic range (TTR) and/or (b) incidence of thromboembolic events and/or (c) hemorrhagic events?
Is there evidence that self-testing and/or self-management is at least equivalent to self-testing alone for the above three outcomes?
In determining the articles which would be eligible for review, we used the following inclusion and exclusion criteria:

Inclusion Criteria

Articles must be published in English language
Study must have been on human subjects
Articles must have been published in a peer-reviewed journal from 1989-2001
Study must have included a control group not using the home INR monitors
Study must have looked at one of the following outcome measures:
Primary: 1. Thromboembolic events
2. Hemorrhagic events
Secondary: 1. Time in therapeutic range


Exclusion Criteria

Editorials
Abstracts
Review Articles
Letters/Comments

I do not know if any VR.com members used this Medicare Memo in their appeal of the denial from the insurance.

Has any VR.com member used this with the insurance?

EJ
 

Latest posts

Back
Top