Jack B Fu1, Josephine R Bianty2, Jimin Wu3, An Ngo-Huang4, Ki Y Shin5, Eduardo Bruera6. 1. Department of Palliative Care and Rehabilitation Medicine, Unit 1414, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77030(∗). Electronic address: jfu@mdanderson.org. 2. Department of Palliative Care and Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX(†). 3. Department of Biostatistics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX(‡). 4. Department of Palliative Care and Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX(§). 5. Department of Palliative Care and Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX(‖). 6. Department of Palliative Care and Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX(¶).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Acute inpatient rehabilitation is often used by cancer patients to assist with discharge home and/or preparation for further treatment. Private insurance patients often require approval before transfer to acute inpatient rehabilitation. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the approval rate of private insurance carriers for acute inpatient cancer rehabilitation. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SETTING: Tertiary referral-based cancer center. PATIENTS: A total of 96 consecutive patients with private insurance who had acute inpatient rehabilitation authorization requests made between April 1, 2014, and September 17, 2014. INTERVENTION: Patient cases were assessed by a physiatrist, deemed clinically appropriate for acute inpatient rehabilitation, and submitted to private insurance payers for an approval request. RESULTS: In all, 84 of 96 requests (87%) for private insurance authorization for inpatient rehabilitation transfer were approved. Of the 96 cases, 14 cases (14.6%) were initially denied. Nine of 96 (9.4%) progressed to a peer-to-peer appeal, of which only 2 of 9 (11.1%) resulted in approval for inpatient rehabilitation transfer (P = .222). The insurance carriers represented were designated as insurance A (46 patients, 48%), insurance B (18 patients, 19%), insurance C (12 patients, 13%), and other insurances (20, 21%). Two of 46 insurance A requests were initially denied, as compared to 7 of 18 for insurance B, 0 of 12 for insurance C, and 4 of 20 for other insurances (P = .001). Patients with insurance B (P = .002, odds ratio = 14) and other insurances (P = .062, odds ratio = 5.50) were more likely to be denied inpatient rehabilitation approval compared to patients with insurance A. No significant difference between mean Functional Independence Measure scores for approved and denied patients were found for transfers (P = .239) and mobility (P = .129), respectively. CONCLUSION: Access to acute inpatient rehabilitation is unfortunately limited by insurers rather than clinical indicators. Future multicenter studies and universally accepted guidelines regarding inpatient rehabilitation criteria are needed.
BACKGROUND: Acute inpatient rehabilitation is often used by cancerpatients to assist with discharge home and/or preparation for further treatment. Private insurance patients often require approval before transfer to acute inpatient rehabilitation. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the approval rate of private insurance carriers for acute inpatient cancer rehabilitation. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SETTING: Tertiary referral-based cancer center. PATIENTS: A total of 96 consecutive patients with private insurance who had acute inpatient rehabilitation authorization requests made between April 1, 2014, and September 17, 2014. INTERVENTION: Patient cases were assessed by a physiatrist, deemed clinically appropriate for acute inpatient rehabilitation, and submitted to private insurance payers for an approval request. RESULTS: In all, 84 of 96 requests (87%) for private insurance authorization for inpatient rehabilitation transfer were approved. Of the 96 cases, 14 cases (14.6%) were initially denied. Nine of 96 (9.4%) progressed to a peer-to-peer appeal, of which only 2 of 9 (11.1%) resulted in approval for inpatient rehabilitation transfer (P = .222). The insurance carriers represented were designated as insurance A (46 patients, 48%), insurance B (18 patients, 19%), insurance C (12 patients, 13%), and other insurances (20, 21%). Two of 46 insurance A requests were initially denied, as compared to 7 of 18 for insurance B, 0 of 12 for insurance C, and 4 of 20 for other insurances (P = .001). Patients with insurance B (P = .002, odds ratio = 14) and other insurances (P = .062, odds ratio = 5.50) were more likely to be denied inpatient rehabilitation approval compared to patients with insurance A. No significant difference between mean Functional Independence Measure scores for approved and denied patients were found for transfers (P = .239) and mobility (P = .129), respectively. CONCLUSION: Access to acute inpatient rehabilitation is unfortunately limited by insurers rather than clinical indicators. Future multicenter studies and universally accepted guidelines regarding inpatient rehabilitation criteria are needed.
Authors: Nicole L Stout; Catherine M Alfano; Christopher W Belter; Ralph Nitkin; Alison Cernich; Karen Lohmann Siegel; Leighton Chan Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Cristina A Shea; Razvan Turcu; Bonny S Wong; Michelle E Brassil; Chloe S Slocum; Richard Goldstein; Ross D Zafonte; Shirley L Shih; Jeffrey C Schneider Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2021-05-11 Impact factor: 4.669