National Academies Press: OpenBook

Perspectives on Essential Health Benefits: Workshop Report (2012)

Chapter: Appendix C: Stanford Model Contractual Language for Medical Necessity

« Previous: Appendix B: Web-Based Questions for Public Input on Determination of Essential Health Benefits
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Stanford Model Contractual Language for Medical Necessity." Institute of Medicine. 2012. Perspectives on Essential Health Benefits: Workshop Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13182.
×

Appendix C

Stanford Model Contractual Language for Medical Necessity

In the late 1990s, a research team convened by Stanford University developed model contract language for medical necessity, as follows:

For contractual purposes, an intervention will be covered if it is an otherwise covered category of service, not specifically excluded, and medically necessary. An intervention may be medically indicated yet not be a covered benefit or meet this contractual definition of medical necessity. A health plan may choose to cover interventions that do not meet this contractual definition of medical necessity.

An intervention is medically necessary if, as recommended by the treating physician1 and determined by the health plan’s medical director or physician designee,2 it is all of the following:

A health intervention3 for the purpose of treating a medical condition; the most appropriate supply or level of service, considering potential benefits and harms to the patient; known to be effective4 in improving health outcomes.5 For new interventions,6 effectiveness is determined by scientific evidence.7,8 For existing interventions,

____________________

1 Treating physician means a physician who has personally evaluated the patient.

2 Physician designee means a physician designated to assist in the decision-making process.

3 A health intervention is an item or service delivered or undertaken primarily to treat (i.e., prevent, diagnose, detect, treat, or palliate) a medical condition (i.e., disease; illness; injury; genetic or congenital defect; pregnancy; or a biological or psychological condition that lies outside the range of normal, age-appropriate human variation) or to maintain or restore functional ability. For the contractual definition of medical necessity, a health intervention is defined not only by the intervention itself, but also by the medical condition and patient indications for which it is being applied.

4 Effective means that the intervention can reasonably be expected to produce the intended results and to have expected benefits that outweigh potential harmful effects.

5 Health outcomes are outcomes that affect health status as measured by the length or quality (primarily as perceived by the patient) of a person’s life.

6 An intervention is considered to be new if it is not yet in widespread use for the medical condition and patient indications being considered.

7 Scientific evidence consists primarily of controlled clinical trials that either directly or indirectly demonstrate the effect of the intervention on health outcomes. If controlled clinical trials are not available, observational studies that demonstrate a causal relationship between the intervention and health outcomes can be used. Partially controlled observational studies and uncontrolled clinical series may be suggestive, but do not by themselves demonstrate a causal relationship unless the magnitude of the effect observed exceeds anything that could be explained either by the natural history of the medical condition or potential experimental biases.

8 New interventions for which clinical trials have not been conducted because of epidemiological reasons (i.e., rare or new diseases or orphan populations) shall be evaluated on the basis of professional standards of care or expert opinion (as described in footnote 9).

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Stanford Model Contractual Language for Medical Necessity." Institute of Medicine. 2012. Perspectives on Essential Health Benefits: Workshop Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13182.
×

effectiveness is determined first by scientific evidence, then by professional standards, then by expert opinion;9 and cost-effective for this condition compared to alternative interventions, including no intervention.10 “Cost-effective” does not necessarily mean lowest price.

REFERENCE

Singer, S., L. Bergthold, C. Vorhaus, S. Olson, I. Mutchnick, Y. Y. Goh, S. Zimmerman, and A. Enthoven. 1999. Decreasing variation in medical necessity decision making. Appendix B. Model language developed at the “Decreasing Variation in Medical Necessity Decision Making” Decision Maker Workshop in Sacramento, CA, March 11-13, 1999.

____________________

9 For existing interventions, the scientific evidence should be considered first and, to the greatest extent possible, should be the basis for determinations of medical necessity. If no scientific evidence is available, professional standards of care should be considered. If professional standards of care do not exist, or are outdated or contradictory, decisions about existing interventions should be based on expert opinion. Giving priority to scientific evidence does not mean that coverage of existing interventions should be denied in the absence of conclusive scientific evidence. Existing interventions can meet the contractual definition of medical necessity in the absence of scientific evidence if there is a strong conviction of effectiveness and benefit expressed through up-to-date and consistent professional standards of care or, in the absence of such standards, convincing expert opinion.

10 An intervention is considered cost effective if the benefits and harms relative to costs represent an economically efficient use of resources for patients with this condition. In the application of this criterion to an individual case, the characteristics of the individual patient shall be determinative.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Stanford Model Contractual Language for Medical Necessity." Institute of Medicine. 2012. Perspectives on Essential Health Benefits: Workshop Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13182.
×
Page 163
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Stanford Model Contractual Language for Medical Necessity." Institute of Medicine. 2012. Perspectives on Essential Health Benefits: Workshop Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13182.
×
Page 164
Perspectives on Essential Health Benefits: Workshop Report Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $45.00 Buy Ebook | $36.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (herein known as the Affordable Care Act [ACA]) was signed into law on March 23, 2010. Several provisions of the law went into effect in 2010 (including requirements to cover children up to age 26 and to prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions for children). Other provisions will go into effect during 2014, including the requirement for all individuals to purchase health insurance.

In 2014, insurance purchasers will be allowed, but not obliged, to buy their coverage through newly established health insurance exchanges (HIEs)--marketplaces designed to make it easier for customers to comparison shop among plans and for low and moderate income individuals to obtain public subsidies to purchase private health insurance. The exchanges will offer a choice of private health plans, and all plans must include a standard core set of covered benefits, called essential health benefits (EHBs).

The Department of Health and Human Services requested that the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommend criteria and methods for determining and updating the EHBs. In response, the IOM convened two workshops in 2011 where experts from federal and state government, as well as employers, insurers, providers, consumers, and health care researchers were asked to identify current methods for determining medical necessity, and share decision-making approaches to determining which benefits would be covered and other benefit design practices. Essential Health Benefits summarizes the presentations in this workshop. The committee's recommendations will be released in a subsequent report.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!