WAC 246-305-060
Criteria and considerations for
independent review determinations. (1) General criteria and
considerations.
(a) The determination must be consistent with the
standards in RCW 43.70.235, 48.43.535, and chapter 246-305
WAC.
(b) The expert reviewers from a certified IRO will make
determinations regarding the medical necessity or
appropriateness of, and the application of health plan
coverage provisions to, health care services for an enrollee.
(c) The IRO shall ensure that determinations are
consistent with the scope of covered benefits as outlined in
the medical coverage agreement.
(i) Clinical reviewers may override the health plan's
medical necessity or appropriateness standards only if the
standards are determined upon review to be unreasonable or
inconsistent with sound, evidence-based medical practice, or
experimental or investigational treatment protocols.
(ii) Reviewers may make determinations about the
application of general health plan coverage provisions to
specific issues concerning health care services for an
enrollee. For example, whether a specific service is excluded
by more general benefit exclusion language may require
independent interpretation.
(2) Medical necessity and appropriateness - Criteria and
considerations. Only clinical reviewers may determine whether
a service, which is the subject of an adverse decision, is
medically necessary and appropriate. These determinations
must be based upon their expert clinical judgment, after
consideration of relevant medical, scientific, and
cost-effectiveness evidence, and medical standards of practice
in Washington state.
(a) Medical standards of practice include the standards
appropriately applied to physicians or other health care
providers, as pertinent to the case.
(b) In considering medical standards of practice within
Washington state:
(i) Clinical reviewers may use national standards of
care, absent evidence presented by the health plan or enrollee
that the Washington state standard of care is different.
(ii) A health care service or treatment should be
considered part of the Washington state standard of practice
if reviewers believe that failure to provide it would be
inconsistent with that degree of care, skill and learning
expected of a reasonably prudent health care provider acting
in the same or similar circumstances.
(c) Medical necessity will be a factor in most cases
referred to an IRO, but not necessarily in all. See WAC 246-305-060(3).
(3) Health plan coverage provisions - Criteria and
considerations. The following requirements must be observed
when a review requires making determinations about the
application of health plan coverage provisions to issues
concerning health care services for an enrollee.
(a) These determinations must be made by one or more
contract specialists meeting the requirements of WAC 246-305-040(4), except that a clinical determination of
medical necessity or appropriateness, by itself, is not an
interpretation of the scope of covered benefits and does not
require a contract specialist.
(b) If the full health plan coverage agreement has not
already been provided by the carrier under WAC 284-43-630
(2)(f) of the insurance commissioner, the IRO shall request
additional provisions from the health plan coverage agreement
in effect during the relevant period of the enrollee's
coverage, as necessary to have an adequate context for
determinations.
(c) In general, the IRO and its contract specialists may
assume that the contractual health plan coverage provisions
themselves are consistent with the Washington Insurance Code
(Title 48 RCW), absent information to the contrary. Primary
responsibility for determining consistency with the insurance
code, when at issue, rests with the insurance commissioner.
(4) No provision of this chapter should be interpreted to
establish a standard of medical care, or to create or
eliminate any cause of action.
[Statutory Authority: RCW 43.70.235 and 48.43.535. 11-23-124, § 246-305-060, filed 11/21/11, effective 11/26/11;
01-08-023, § 246-305-060, filed 3/28/01, effective 4/28/01.]