Who defines 'medical necessity'?
Lounging on the beach one afternoon, my wife suggested that health insurers be required to reimburse women for breast reshaping after childbirth. After all, we treat delivery as a medical procedure and recommend breast-feeding for the health of infants. Why shouldn't fixing a "side effect" of this necessary biological activity—sagging breasts—also be deserving of insurance coverage? Reconstructive surgery after other medical procedures is reimbursed. In my gut, something tells me breast reshaping isn't really healthcare. But why? We already reimburse for a broad variety of cosmetic procedures, usually to fix a congenital deformity, an injury, or the effects of a disease.
- MU Slides into Summer of Discontent
- Doc Shortage 'Fix' Is a Disaster Waiting to Happen
- 2015 OPPS Proposed Rule Detailed
- Physician Pay Increasingly Linked to Value-based Metrics
- Critical Times for Small and Rural Hospitals
- Advanced EHRs Save 10% Per Patient, Study Says
- Providence, Swedish Health Launch Employer-Driven ACO
- Fees Lurk in Health Plans' Shift to e-Payments
- 4 Hot Healthcare Exec Titles; 1 Not
- Infuriated by MOC Rules, Physicians Unleash on Certification Boards