OrthoNet Reviews (2)
OrthoNet Rating
Description: INSURANCE-HEALTH
Address: PO Box5016, White Plains, New York, United States, 10602
Phone: |
Show more...
|
Add contact information for OrthoNet
Add new contacts
ADVERTISEMENT
Review: GEHA, [redacted] use [redacted] for approval of services such as physical therapy, pain management injections, etc. My Doctor office sent the information for approval of the services rendered by the Doctor. Orthonet, responded that they will not approve this procedures because the Doctor never sent the medical notes for review. Dr.[redacted] office advise me that all the document needed for this process were fax to this office. Ref number: [redacted]. The [redacted] Injection was done to treat constant back pain. I was referred to this office by my specialist to so I could get this treatment. The problem I find is that this office always look for some way to deny the claims. As it happened in the past with my daughter physical therapy needed due to a stress fracture on her leg. She have to stop going due to the denial. I called to find a solutions. Mr. [redacted] told me that this was the Medical reviewer decision and there was nothing else that can be done. I asked If I could get the Doctor to send the info again. Was told that the reviewer was done with it and the claim was not going to change. I asked if they follow up with the office and was told no. This is not their job. There is not need to ask for my other Doctors medical note. I was a referral. I depend on this insurance to take care of our claims. It is seem that this office always find a problem so they do not approve the claim.Desired Settlement: I am requesting this office to review this request and make sure that they are approved accordingly for the services so insurance can pay the percentage required. If more info is needed, Orthonet need to contact the Dr. office requesting the process to be approved. Due to their actions I should not be punished and been left hanging with a bill due to the lack of follow up with the Dr. office.
Consumer
Response:
At this time, I have not been contacted by [redacted] regarding complaint ID [redacted].
Sincerely,
Business
Response:
To whom it may concern:
Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to respond to this individual's concerns. As the individual stated,
his physician gave him a steroid injection
for back pain, for which he has sought coverage from his carrier
Government Employees Health
Association, Inc. (GEHA). GEHA,
a self insured non-profit association, is the nation's second
largest provider of health insurance
benefit plans to federal employees and retirees and their dependents. Please note that beyond what the patient himself
has disclosed, we are constrained by federal privacy
laws that prevent
us from disclosing additional information
about his condition, treatment, or healthcare coverage.
GEHA's
insurance contracts require
its members, or the member's
providers, to obtain prior authorization for ce11ain
services, including specified
pain procedures. When complied
with, this prior authorization process ensures
that both patients
and providers know in advance
whether proposed treatments are medically necessat)' covered
benefits that GEHA will reimburse.
GEHA
has retained [redacted]
to
provide these medical necessity
determinations, and every one of our pain-management decisions is made
by a licensed
healthcare professional under the supervision of a physician
medical director who is board ce11ified in an appropriate clinical specialty. 011h0Net's medical directors are experienced in pain
management and fully endorse the use of pain procedures when they are medically appropriate. But each year thousands of patients
receive spinal injections that predictably do nothing to alleviate their
pain, while exposing them to risks including infections, such as last year's situation in which hundreds
of
spine-injection patients suffered
after being injected
with bad serum. Utilization management reduces risks by minimizing patients' exposure to treatments they do not need or that will not work. A pa11icular benefit of01thoNet's prior authorization reviews
is that when our physicians have questions about
the medical appropriateness of a proposed
treatment, they can discuss the case with the treating
doctor to seek agreement on a medically
appropriate treatment plan that is in the patient's best interests.
In this case, as the patient indicates, his physician sought after-the-fact authorization for "services
rendered by the doctor," instead
of requesting the required prior (pre-service) approval. Many carriers would deny payment on this basis alone.
However, as a courtesy
to the member and provider,
GEHA would pay for the services,
despite the lack of prior authorization, if a retrospective (post-se1vice) review of information submitted by the provider demonstrated the services were medically necessary. In this case the minimal
information that the provider submitted
did not support a finding
of medical
necessity.
This patient
and the provider were informed
in writing of the reason for
the decision and the steps to take to have the decision
reconsidered. While [redacted]'s decisions are overwhelmingly upheld
on appeal,
the likelihood of an overturn
is enhanced when the patient's
physician gives the appeal panel more complete information than he or she submitted
to 01th0Net's physician reviewers.
The patient
appears to be unsure about how to verify that he received all of the insurance benefits
to which he is entitled under his contract
with GEHA. We suggest that he should
contact the GEHA's Customer Service
Depaitment, which can be reached
toll free at [redacted], Monday
through Friday from 8 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Information on how to contact
GEHA is also listed on the patient's GEHA ID card and on the health
plan's website, geha.com.
Again, thank you for allowing us the chance
to respond to this individual's concern.