Medical Necessity

How the politics of “medical necessity” complicates American health care The definition of medical necessity has morphed over the years, from a singular physician’s determination to a complex and dynamic political contest involving patients, medical companies, insurance companies, and government agencies. In this book, Daniel Skinner constructs a comprehensive understanding of the politics of defining this concept, arguing that sustained political engagement with medical necessity is essential to developing a health care system that meets basic public health objectives. From medical marijuana to mental health to reproductive politics, the concept of medical necessity underscores many of the most divisive and contentious debates in American health care. Skinner’s close reading of medical necessity’s production illuminates the divides between perceptions of medical need as well as how the gatekeeper concept of medical necessity tends to frame medical objectives. He questions the wisdom of continuing to use medical necessity when thinking critically about vexing health care challenges, exploring the possibility that contracts, rights, and technology may resolve the contentious politics of medical necessity. Skinner ultimately contends that a major shift is needed, one in which health care administrators, doctors, and patients admit that medical necessity is, at its base, a contestable political concept.

In 2010, an estimated 50 million people were uninsured in the United States. A portion of the uninsured reflects unemployment rates; however, this rate is primarily a reflection of the fact that when most health plans meet an individual's needs, most times, those health plans are not affordable. Research shows that people without health insurance are more likely to experience financial burdens associated with the utilization of health care services. But even among the insured, underinsurance has emerged as a barrier to care. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) has made the most comprehensive changes to the provision of health insurance since the development of Medicare and Medicaid by requiring all Americans to have health insurance by 2016. An estimated 30 million individuals who would otherwise be uninsured are expected to obtain insurance through the private health insurance market or state expansion of Medicaid programs. The success of the ACA depends on the design of the essential health benefits (EHB) package and its affordability. Essential Health Benefits recommends a process for defining, monitoring, and updating the EHB package. The book is of value to Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) and other U.S. Department of Health and Human Services agencies, state insurance agencies, Congress, state governors, health care providers, and consumer advocates.

In response to a request by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), the Institute of Medicine proposed a study to examine definitions of serious or complex medical conditions and related issues. A seven-member committee was appointed to address these issues. Throughout the course of this study, the committee has been aware of the fact that the topic addressed by this report concerns one of the most critical issues confronting HCFA, health care plans and providers, and patients today. The Medicare+Choice regulations focus on the most vulnerable populations in need of medical care and other services-those with serious or complex medical conditions. Caring for these highly vulnerable populations poses a number of challenges. The committee believes, however, that the current state of clinical and research literature does not adequately address all of the challenges and issues relevant to the identification and care of these patients.

This report, which was developed by an expert committee of the Institute of Medicine, reviews the first three services listed above. It is intended to assist policymakers by providing syntheses of the best evidence available about the effectiveness of these services and by estimating the cost to Medicare of covering them. For each service or condition examined, the committee commissioned a review of the scientific literature that was presented and discussed at a public workshop. As requested by Congress, this report includes explicit estimates only of costs to Medicare, not costs to beneficiaries, their families, or others. It also does not include cost-effectiveness analyses. That is, the extent of the benefits relative to the costs to Medicareâ€"or to society generallyâ€"is not evaluated for the services examined. The method for estimating Medicare costs follows the generic estimation practices of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The objective was to provide Congress with estimates that were based on familiar procedures and could be compared readily with earlier and later CBO estimates. For each condition or service, the estimates are intended to suggest the order of magnitude of the costs to Medicare of extending coverage, but the estimates could be considerably higher or lower than what Medicare might actually spend were coverage policies changed. The estimates cover the five-year period 2000-2004. In addition to the conclusions about specific coverage issues, the report examines some broader concerns about the processes for making coverage decisions and about the research and organizational infrastructure for these decisions. It also briefly examines the limits of coverage as a means of improving health services and outcomes and the limits of evidence as a means of resolving policy and ethical questions.