| Why Do Doctors Lie to Insurers? | |
ANN ARBOR, MI --
In a paper published today in the Archives of Internal Medicine, University of
Michigan Health System researchers found some physicians are willing to
misrepresent clinical information to insurance companies in order for their
patients to receive the medical treatment they feel is necessary.
Senior author of the paper, Peter A. Ubel, M.D., associate professor of internal
medicine in the University of Michigan Medical School and research investigator
at the Ann Arbor Veterans Administration Medical Center, says he's not
surprised.
"In an effort to control health care costs, many insurance companies have
developed mechanisms to limit physicians' ability to order expensive tests or
treatments," says Ubel. "If the HMO says 'no', doctors can appeal, but often, it
is a long and burdensome process. So in some cases, physicians lie about their
patient's condition."
Using a random survey of 890 physicians with similar scenarios, the study found
11 percent of doctors said they would misrepresent the patient's condition to
obtain HMO approval for surgery or additional procedures. Seventy-seven percent
said they would appeal the decision, while 12 percent said they would accept it.
But when hassle of the appeals process increased, so did the number of
physicians willing to misrepresent patient information.
"The 'hassle factor' had a big influence over the doctors' actions," notes Ubel,
director of the Program for Improving Health Care Decisions or PIHCD, a new
program funded jointly by the
U-M and Ann Arbor's Veterans Administration Medical Center. "In fact, when
physicians were told the appeal process would be 50 percent successful, 13
percent reported they would misrepresent, as opposed to 9 percent with a 95
percent success rate."
The study also found time and the severity of the patient's illness directly
related to a physician's willingness to deceive an insurance company. If an
appeal was estimated to take 10 minutes, 9 percent of doctors would misrepresent
data. If the appeal was estimated to take 60 minutes it jumps up to 14 percent.
In the case of severity, 16 percent would lie if the case was more severe as
opposed to only 7 percent if the case was less severe.
"It's important not to see this as an us-versus-them issue," says Ubel. "We
ought to see it as how to find the best way to give people appropriate care,
while restraining the use of expensive tests that brings small benefits. The
more it is seen as us-versus-them, the more doctors will begin playing by their
own rules. If that happens, it is everyone's problem."
Other authors on the study are Rachel M. Werner, M.D., at University of
Pennsylvania, G. Caleb Alexander, M.D., University of Chicago, and Angela
Fagerlin, Ph.D., University of Michigan Medical School.
---University of Michigan
Back to The Science of Mental Health
Articles in The Science of Mental Health are written by the originating institution. This article was originally posted to Newswise. Newswise maintains a comprehensive database of news releases from top institutions engaged in scientific, medical, liberal arts and business research. The friendly interface allows you to search, browse or download any article or abstract.
