By Barby Ingle, PNN Columnist

Patients, caregivers and providers have been fighting with insurance companies for years over step therapy practices, prior authorization delays and changes in specialty tier medications. If a claim is turned down by a payer, there is usually a way to appeal – such as a peer-to-peer review between a provider and a physician at the insurance company.

An insurance policy has come to my attention which ends peer-to-peer reviews and ultimately is a way to limit access to healthcare and avoid paying for certain treatments. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas no longer allows physicians to speak directly to their medical director.

A peer-to-peer review occurs after receiving an authorization denial. Often the first denial is by a claims adjuster, who is usually not a medical professional. When that happens, the treating provider may request to speak with the insurer’s medical director to discuss the rationale for the denial. This process is sometimes referred to as a “doctor to doctor" appeal.  

Providers typically have a time frame where a peer-to-peer request must be made. For inpatient and pre-service requests, it is typically 5 business days. They have 60 days to complete the appeal from the date of denial.

Peer-to-peer requests are often not granted because they were made too late or there is insufficient clinical documentation. But they’re worth trying.

A Kansas provider recently requested a peer-to-peer meeting and received this email response from a representative of Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) of Kansas:

“We used to have in our policy that we allowed requests for peer-to-peer reviews with our Medical Directors. We took that out a few years back and no longer give our providers that option. That is our internal policy.”

The email suggests this “internal policy” is not a known public policy or practice by BCBS of Kansas.

How are patients and providers able to get proper and timely care after an authorization denial if they are not able to request a peer-to-peer review?  I can see how this “internal policy” does save the insurer money over the short-term. But long term, not allowing physicians to speak directly to the medical director leads to delays and denials of care.

“Physicians are frustrated. Now this policy from BCBS of Kansas.  It is much easier to deny a piece of paper than a real human being.” says Gayle Taylor-Ford, a Kansas pain patient, provider and board member of iPain.

Step therapy and prior authorization policies are limiting access to healthcare for patients around the country. A recent study found that about 66% of prescriptions that get rejected at the pharmacy require prior authorization. Further complicating the situation is when a prior authorization is imposed, only 29% of patients end up with the originally prescribed treatment — and 40% end up abandoning therapy altogether!

This causes frustration, delay in care, depression, and poor adherence to treatment plans. The health of patients who don’t get the medication that could best treat their condition -- or who don’t get any therapy at all -- often gets worse. That leads to an increase in doctor and emergency room visits — and higher healthcare costs.

I wish we knew why BCBS of Kansas made this policy change. BCBS companies in other states still allow peer-to-peer reviews. Why is this a non-consistent policy and why is it even allowed in Kansas?

(Editor’s note: PNN asked for a comment from BCBS of Kansas and received this reply from a spokesperson: “While we appreciate you reaching out for comment, we respectfully decline to offer a response to the story.”)

There are already challenges in the peer-to-peer appeal process, as oncologist Rick Boulay, MD, described in KevinMD.com. Boulay wrote about his frustration getting cancer treatments approved when talking to the ‘insurance doctor’ who was supposed to be his peer.

“Most patients are unaware of this, but your physician is likely your biggest advocate when it comes to getting your care covered,” Boulay wrote. “At least weekly, and occasionally daily, insurance companies deny payment for some cancer treatment that I prescribe. In my career, I cannot think of a single aspect of the cancer care continuum that hasn’t been denied.”

At least Dr. Boulay was able to get peer-to-peer reviews and have some of those denials reversed. 

To deny our providers the ability to appeal is wrong. It’s just a new way to deny proper and timely access to healthcare. The fact that BCBS of Kansas is hiding its “internal policy” is also a sign that they know they are delaying and denying care that patients need.

It also raises a question. How many other insurance providers are doing the same thing?

Barby Ingle lives with reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD), migralepsy and endometriosis. Barby is a chronic pain educator, patient advocate, and president of the International Pain Foundation. She is also a motivational speaker and best-selling author on pain topics. More information about Barby can be found at her website. 

This column is for informational purposes only and represents the author’s opinions alone. It does not inherently express or reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of Pain News Network.