How Insurance Handles SMI
Why are so many people with Serious Mental Illness (SMI) underinsured or unable to get insurance at all? As you may guess, a large part of the problem lies not with the providers but with the insurance companies.
The recent murder of an insurance company CEO has focused a spotlight on the role of insurance companies in denying health care in general. There’s been a groundswell of people angry at insurance companies coming between sick people and the doctors who prescribe them care. Ridiculous rulings such as providing anesthesia for only a limited time during surgeries have come to light. Denials of life-saving or pain-alleviating medications have been exposed as common.
One part of the problem is “ghost networks.” These involve the list of in-network providers insurance companies provide to their subscribers. Again and again, these have proved to be faulty. The lists contain doctors who are no longer practicing, ones who aren’t actually in-network, and ones who aren’t accepting new patients. There can also be incorrect phone numbers.
But the plight of people with SMI is even more serious. Insurance companies don’t want subscribers with mental disorders because they don’t make money from them. “One way to get rid of those people or not get them is to not have a great network,” according to someone involved with managing contracts with providers. Patients are pushed out-of-network for more expensive care that’s not covered or covered to a lesser extent by insurance companies. The Affordable Care Act was supposed to guarantee parity for mental health treatment, but that hasn’t always happened, and patients with mental disorders often couldn’t follow up on denials. And Obamacare as it exists now may not last under the new Republican administration.
Then, too, insurers encourage providers to change their treatment plans for clients who have SMI, even if they’re suicidal. Psychiatrists and psychologists find themselves having to tread carefully when writing care plans so that insurers will approve the care that patients need and keep approving longer-term treatment. The insurers can even pressure providers to terminate treatment altogether. Treatment plans that last over six to eight weeks are especially likely to be denied.
Even when insurers do approve treatment plans, another problem is reimbursement to providers. The money they receive is meager and insurers stall in regard to providing it. It can take three or four months to receive any reimbursement at all. This means that providers struggle to keep practicing. Some go out of business and then remain listed on the ghost networks as continuing to provide services.
Some therapists end their relationships with insurance companies because of the frustrations of getting approvals for care. One reported spending eight hours with a client and then having to spend four hours communicating with a difficult insurer while trying to get approvals and payment.
Yet another problem that providers experience is that claims servicing has often been outsourced. Customer service may be handled by representatives in other countries. They may not have access to all the information they need to process claims. Others aren’t familiar with the psychiatric terminology. When providers find it too difficult to follow up on claim denials, they may stop pursuing the matter. The insurance company then doesn’t have to pay for the treatment.
The insurance companies counter that they are following state and federal laws, that their reimbursements represent payments at current market rates, and that their policies are designed to provide access to care for patients with mental illnesses.
And that’s private insurance providers. What about Medicaid?
In four cities, researchers pretended to be Medicaid patients and called clinicians at random regarding their first available appointment. Just over a quarter reported having any available. In LA, only 15% had available appointments and the wait for them could be as much as two months. There were also Medicaid providers on ghost lists like the ones from private insurers.
All these problems certainly contribute to inadequate care for people with SMI. Between finding a provider, receiving a treatment plan, and being at the bottom of insurers’ list of patients to be served, it’s no wonder that so many people who really need care aren’t receiving it.
Will the current level of outrage have any effect on how mental patients receive care? It doesn’t seem likely. Most of the people decrying the brutal treatment by insurance companies are patients experiencing problems other than mental health-related ones. As usual, there are few who speak up for those who need psychiatric treatment, even though egregious obstacles are put in their way. As my father would have put it, mental patients are “sucking hind teat.” And the prospects for that to end look remote. Dealing with the mighty insurance companies is difficult at best and demoralizing at worst. Effective advocacy is needed but unlikely to appear. In the meantime, psychiatric patients are suffering.
Information for this post includes material from Mindsite News, ProPublica, and JAMA.
