[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 173 (Monday, September 8, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47262-47266]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23483]
[[Page 47261]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Department of Labor
_______________________________________________________________________
Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
29 CFR Part 2560
Claims Procedures for Employee Benefit Plans; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 173 / Monday, September 8, 1997 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 47262]]
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration
29 CFR Part 2560
Claims Procedures for Employee Benefit Plans
AGENCY: Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Request for information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document requests information from the public concerning
the advisability of amending the existing regulation under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) that establishes minimum
requirements for employee benefit plan claims procedures. The term
``claims procedure'' refers to the process that employee benefit plans
must provide for participants and beneficiaries who seek to obtain
pension or welfare plan benefits, including requests for medical
treatment or services, consideration of claims, and review of denials
of claims by plans. The primary purpose of this notice is to obtain
information to assist the Department of Labor (the Department) in
evaluating (1) The extent to which the current claims procedure
regulation assures that group health plan participants and
beneficiaries are provided with effective and timely means to file and
resolve claims for health care benefits, and (2) whether and in what
way the existing minimum requirements should be amended with respect to
group health plans covered by ERISA. The furnished information also
will assist the Department in determining whether the regulation should
be amended with respect to pension plans covered by ERISA and in
developing legislative proposals to address any identified deficiencies
relating to the claims procedures that cannot be addressed by amending
the current regulation.
DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the Department of Labor on
or before November 7, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Comments (preferably, at least six copies) should be
addressed to the Office of Regulations and Interpretations, Pension and
Welfare Benefits Administration, Room N-5669, U.S. Department of Labor,
Washington, D.C. 20210. Attention: Claims Procedure RFI. All comments
received will be available for public inspection at the Public
Disclosure Room, Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor, Room N-5638, 200 Constitution Ave., N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20210.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey J. Turner or Susan G. Lahne,
Office of Regulations and Interpretations, Pension and Welfare Benefits
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. 20210,
telephone (202) 219-7461, or Cynthia Caldwell Weglicki, Plan Benefits
Security Division, Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor,
Washington, D.C., telephone (202) 219-4600, ext. 106. These are not
toll-free numbers.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
The Department's regulation, published in 1977, was drafted in
response to concerns about plan practices prior to the enactment of
ERISA, particularly with respect to participants' lack of information
about claims procedures generally. This regulation makes no distinction
between pension and health care plans. In the intervening years,
dramatic changes in health care delivery have raised many issues
concerning access, coverage, and quality of care and have resulted in
various legislative responses. In addition to numerous initiatives at
the State government level, a number of Federal laws have been enacted
to address these issues. The Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996, the Newborns and Mothers Health Protection
Act of 1996, and the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 are recent
examples. In addition, on September 5, 1996, President Clinton signed
Executive Order 13017 establishing the Advisory Commission on Consumer
Protection and Quality in the Health Care Industry. More recently, the
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-33) contains a number of
provisions relating to managed care in connection with the Medicare and
Medicaid programs.
One of the most important changes to occur has been the growth of
managed health care delivery systems.1 These arrangements
adopt various measures to control costs and increase efficiency. For
example, they may impose limits or conditions on an individual's choice
of physicians and often require prior approval before an individual can
obtain, or obtain reimbursement for, hospital care or medical services
provided by a specialist. Both fee-for-service and health maintenance
organizations (HMOs), as well as preferred provider and other types of
delivery systems, may rely on managed care measures. As a result of the
prevalence of managed care measures, fair and expeditious resolution of
benefits disputes has become an increasingly important issue. Managed
care measures magnify the significance of the procedures that surround
the decision whether medical services will be made available to a
participant or beneficiary, and suggest that the Department should
consider whether its current regulatory minimum standards for such
procedures are sufficient to ensure that decisions on the availability
of medical care are made in a manner that adequately protects the
interests of the individual seeking benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As used in this document, the term ``managed care delivery
systems'' includes any measures taken by medical practitioners,
insurers, or group health plans to control costs by limiting access
to medical services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the same time, technological advances in business communications
in the last twenty years facilitate more rapid communications and
decision-making by plans and participants. The Department's regulation
may no longer reflect current plan practices with respect to these
aspects of filing and reviewing benefit claims. The Department seeks
information about current practices in this area. Along the same lines,
market practices such as accreditation by various professional and
consumer groups have become important private regulatory forces in the
managed care arena. Publication of model acts, such as the Utilization
Review Model Act and the Health Carrier Grievance Procedure Model Act
developed by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners
(NAIC), reflect the importance of time-sensitive review procedures. The
NAIC model acts have served as the basis for State legislation to
provide procedural protections, including expedited review of claims,
to individuals who receive medical benefits through health insurance
contracts that incorporate managed care arrangements.
The Department is not alone in its concern for timely resolution of
requests for medical treatment from group health plans. The Health Care
Financing Administration (HCFA) has recently published a final
regulation establishing an expedited process in certain circumstances
for Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in managed care entities such as
health maintenance organizations. 2 The HCFA regulation
requires that managed care entities establish an expedited review
process in situations where the time required for
[[Page 47263]]
the standard review process could seriously jeopardize the life or
health of the Medicare beneficiary or the beneficiary's ability to
regain maximum function. The rule also provides that a decision to
discontinue services that are currently being provided may also be
subject to the expedited review process. In the preamble to the
regulation, HCFA indicates that it has drawn on the NAIC model
grievance act in developing the provisions of the review procedure. As
discussed below in section C., Issues Under Consideration, the
Department believes that the HCFA regulation and the NAIC model acts
may serve as the basis for considering whether, and in what respects,
the minimum standards set forth in the ERISA benefit claims procedure
regulation should be amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This regulation was published as a final rule with a request
for comments, 62 FR 23368 (April 30, 1997). The regulation amends a
prior regulation codified at 42 CFR Sec. 417.600-620.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Current ERISA Regulation
Section 503 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1133, provides that, in
accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Labor (the
Secretary), each employee benefit plan must provide ``adequate notice
in writing to any participant or beneficiary whose claim for benefits
under the plan has been denied.'' The notice must set forth the
specific reasons for the denial and must be written in a manner
calculated to be understood by the claimant. Each plan must also afford
``a reasonable opportunity'' for any participant or beneficiary whose
claim has been denied to obtain ``a full and fair review'' of the
denial by the appropriate named fiduciary of the plan.
The Department has issued a regulation pursuant to the above
authority that establishes ``certain minimum requirements for employee
benefit plan procedures pertaining to claims.'' 29 CFR Sec. 2560.503-
1(a). Generally speaking, the following requirements apply. The claims
procedure of an employee benefit plan covered by ERISA (hereinafter
referred to as an ERISA plan) must be described in the plan's summary
plan description. The procedure must not contain any provision or be
administered in any way that would unduly inhibit the initiation or
processing of claims. Participants must be informed in writing and in a
timely fashion of applicable time limits for appeals and responses.
More specifically, the regulation provides that claimants must be
informed in writing ``within a reasonable period of time'' if a claim
is partially or wholly denied. 29 CFR Sec. 2560.503-1(e)(1). For this
purpose, the regulation defines a period of time in excess of 90 days
after receipt of the claim as unreasonable, unless ``special
circumstances'' require an extension of time for processing. In that
case, an extension of an additional 90-day period is available provided
that the claimant receives notice of the extension describing the
special circumstances prior to the end of the original 90-day period.
The notice of a denial of a claim for benefits must be written in a
manner calculated to be understood by the claimant and must contain (1)
specific reason(s) for the denial, (2) reference to plan provisions on
which the denial is based, (3) a description of any additional material
necessary to perfect the claim and why it is necessary, and (4)
information about how to submit the claim for review. If the notice is
not provided in this manner, the claim for benefits is deemed to be
denied.
The regulation also requires that every plan establish a review
procedure providing a ``reasonable opportunity'' to appeal denied
claims to an appropriate named fiduciary or designee. The appeal must
afford ``a full and fair review of the claim and its denial.'' 29 CFR
Sec. 2560.503-1(g)(1). Minimum requirements for the review procedure
include the right to request a review by a written application from the
claimant, the right to review pertinent documents, and the right to
submit issues and comments in writing. A claimant must have at least 60
days after receipt of the denial in which to request a review. A
decision on the review must ordinarily be made within 60 days after the
request for a review, unless special circumstances (such as the need to
hold a hearing if the plan provides for a hearing) require an extension
of time. However, the decision may not be delayed more than 120 days
after receipt of the request for review. Special rules provide longer
periods of time for plans whose named fiduciary is a group, such as a
board of trustees, that holds regularly scheduled meetings at least
quarterly. In that case, the review decision must be made by the
scheduled time of the next meeting, unless the request for review is
received within 30 days prior to that scheduled meeting, in which case
the decision is due no later than the date of the group's second
successive meeting, with a possible extension to the date of the third
meeting if there are special circumstances. 29 CFR Sec. 2560.503-
1(h)(1)(ii). As with the initial denial, the decision on review must be
in writing, include specific reasons for the decision and references to
plan provisions on which the decision is based, and be written in a
manner calculated to be understood by the claimant. If no review
decision is provided within the time frames specified, the claim is
deemed denied.
Under the regulations, plans established pursuant to collective
bargaining agreements are not treated differently from other plans,
except that they are deemed to comply with the regulatory standards for
reviewing denied claims if the collective bargaining agreement pursuant
to which the plan is established either contains or incorporates by
reference provisions concerning the filing and disposition of benefit
claims and a grievance and arbitration procedure for handling denied
claims. Participants in plans under which benefits are provided or
administered by State-regulated insurance organizations may file claims
for benefits, obtain decisions and obtain review of denials through
those organizations, but the minimum standards otherwise remain the
same. The regulation excludes from its scope employee benefit plans
providing only apprenticeship training benefits.
Claims procedures with respect to benefits provided through a
qualified HMO, as defined in the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 300e-9(d), are deemed to satisfy the minimum ERISA regulatory
requirements if they satisfy section 1301 of the Public Health Service
Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 300e) and the regulations thereunder. 29 CFR
Sec. 2560.503-1(j). The regulation addressing claims procedures for
federally qualified HMOs is codified in 42 CFR
Sec. 417.124.3 The pertinent provisions of the Public Health
Service Act regulations require that each qualified HMO prepare a
written description of, among other things, the procedures to be
followed in obtaining benefits, a description of circumstances under
which benefits may be denied, and grievance procedures. 42 CFR
Sec. 417.124(b). Grievance procedures must be ``meaningful'' and must
ensure that complaints are transmitted in a timely manner to
appropriate decision makers who have authority to take corrective
action. Appropriate action in response to grievances is to be taken
promptly, with notice to concerned parties of the
[[Page 47264]]
results of the HMO's investigation. 42 CFR Sec. 417.124(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 42 CFR Sec. 417.124 does not relate to the requirements HMOs
must meet in order to maintain a contract with the Health Care
Financing Administration through which health care benefits are
provided to Medicare beneficiaries. Section 1876 of title XVIII of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395mm) lists those requirements.
Regulations implementing the benefit request and benefit review
rights of Medicare beneficiaries who participate in managed care
delivery systems are found at 42 CFR Sec. 417.600 through
Sec. 417.638. This RFI does not involve benefit review procedures
for Medicare beneficiaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Issues Under Consideration
Questions have been raised with respect to whether the minimum
standards provided in the Department's regulation adequately assure
timely and appropriate recourse for employee benefit plan participants
and beneficiaries making requests for benefits, or seeking review of
benefit claims that have been denied in whole or in part. Although
issues that have arisen in the context of group health plans have
provided the primary impetus to these questions, section 503 of ERISA
and the Department's regulation at 29 CFR Sec. 2560.503-1 apply to both
employee welfare benefit plans (the category that includes group health
plans) and employee pension benefit plans. The Department is seeking
comments concerning the nature of existing benefit determination and
review practices of plans and whether the Department's current
regulation is adequate to protect the interests of both pension and
welfare benefit plan participants and beneficiaries.
The Department is aware that, under current practices, entities
that are involved in providing health care employ a variety of terms to
describe the process by which an individual eligible for health care
services seeks benefits or seeks review of a decision to limit or deny
health care treatment or services. Even where the procedural steps are
similar, entities may use different terminology for the same procedural
step.4 As part of this RFI, the Department is seeking
information as to whether and how it should address the diversity in
terminology that is used to describe the procedural protections
afforded individuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Public Health Service Act regulations applicable to
federally qualified HMOs require written descriptions of
circumstances under which benefits may be denied and written
grievance procedures. 42 CFR Sec. 417.124. Regulations promulgated
by the Office of Personnel Management relating to both fee-for-
service and managed care providers participating in the Federal
Employees Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP) use terms such as filing
claims for payment or services, reconsideration of claims that have
been denied, and review of decisions to deny claims. 5 CFR
Sec. 890.105. HCFA's Medicare regulations provide an appeals
procedure for Medicare beneficiaries contesting an ``organization
determination,'' which, generally speaking, is a decision by a
health care provider to deny, terminate, or not pay for medical
services that the beneficiary believes are covered under the plan. A
``reconsidered determination'' is the result of a review of the
organization determination. The NAIC Health Carrier Grievance Model
Act (October 1966) uses the term ``adverse determination'' for a
carrier's decision that medical services will be denied, reduced or
terminated. The Model Act provides for an appeals procedure to
review an adverse determination. The term grievance is defined as a
written complaint about the availability or quality of health care
services, including, but not limited to adverse determinations.
State insurance laws and regulations dealing with health care
insurance carriers display a similar variety of terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to assist interested parties in responding, this document
contains a list of specific questions designed to elicit information
that the Department believes would be especially helpful in determining
whether and how to develop a notice of proposed rulemaking. The
Department requests that, in addressing the specific questions in this
document, responses refer to the question number as listed in the RFI.
The questions listed by the Department may not address all issues
relevant to claims procedures. The Department further invites
interested parties to submit comments on other aspects of the claims
process that they believe are pertinent to the Department's
consideration of claims procedures in employee benefit plans covered by
title I of ERISA.
In the individual questions below, the following terms have
specific meanings. A ``claim'' is a request for a plan benefit by a
participant or beneficiary. A ``claimant'' is a participant or
beneficiary who has or intends to file a claim. A ``claims procedure''
is the set of rules or requirements by which a claim is filed and
resolved under the plan. A ``review'' or ``appeal'' is the next level
or levels of claims resolution under the plan after the initial
decision occurs or is deemed to have occurred.
Request for Information
Current Practices
1. What information is provided to claimants when requests for
services are denied? What are plan practices generally where the plan
or a service provider must give prior approval before a participant or
beneficiary can obtain certain types of medical treatment?
2. What time frames are typical in ERISA plan claims processes for
initial determination and for review of a denied claim? Do plans have
different time frames for health care benefits that require prior
approval? Do plans maintain special procedures for processing such
claims if they involve ``urgent'' or emergency care?
3. When and under what circumstances do plans hire physicians who
are not affiliated with the plan to provide independent opinions in
connection with a benefit claim? What weight do plans give to the
outside opinion?
4. Do plans provide claims reviewers financial incentives based on
the percentage of claims denied? Are there compensation arrangements
that might influence the reviewers' conclusions? If yes, what are they?
5. The Department's ERISA claims procedure regulation provides that
a claimant seeking review of a denial ``may review pertinent
documents.'' 29 CFR Sec. 2560.503-1(g)(ii). The preamble to the
regulation explains that ``[a]s part of the review the participant must
be allowed to see all plan documents and other papers which affect the
claim.'' 42 FR 27426 (May 27, 1977). What do plans consider to be
examples of pertinent documents or other papers that might affect a
claim for benefits? Is there some utility to permitting participants to
review pertinent documents prior to filing a claim? Would it reduce
claims if a potential claimant could examine documents before filing a
claim? What additional costs, if any, would such a requirement impose
on plans?
6. When and under what circumstances do plans utilize alternative
dispute resolution, arbitration, or similar processes with an outside,
independent decision-maker for review of claims denials? Are there any
conditions or requirements for electing such processes?
7. Are claimants being asked to pay anything to the plan in order
to pursue or perfect their claims review rights? If so, under what
circumstances does this occur? Note: The preamble to 29 CFR
Sec. 2560.503-1, Part II--Technical Explanation of the Regulation,
provides that an otherwise reasonable claims procedure may be deemed to
be ``not reasonable if it contains other provisions which unduly
inhibit or hamper the initiation or processing of plan claims. For
example, a claims procedure may be deemed unreasonable if it requires
the payment of a fee as a condition for filing a claim or obtaining
review of a denied claim.'' 42 FR 27426 (May 27, 1977).
8. Are there problems making claims processing procedures
accessible to plan participants who do not speak English? Should the
Department address these problems in a regulation? If so, how?
9. What limits do plans impose on the time within which a
participant or beneficiary may file a claim for benefits or may request
review? Should the Department adopt minimum standards for filing claims
and new minimum standards for requesting review?
10. To what extent are electronic media used to receive or
communicate benefit claims information or to process claims? What if
any changes to the regulation are necessary to accommodate this?
[[Page 47265]]
Expedited Claims Procedures
Recently HCFA published a final rule requiring that managed care
organizations such as HMOs establish an expedited procedure for
Medicare beneficiaries in situations where the longer time frames in
the standard review process ``could seriously jeopardize the life or
health of the enrollee or the enrollee's ability to regain maximum
function.'' 42 CFR Sec. 471.617(b). Expedited review must be completed
as quickly as the beneficiary's medical condition requires, i.e.,
within 24 or 48 hours as appropriate, but in no case longer than 72
hours, absent special circumstances. The Medicare beneficiary, a
representative of the beneficiary, or a physician may request expedited
review both for the initial request for benefits and for review of
decisions to deny or terminate benefits. Any physician, including one
who is not affiliated with the plan, may request expedited review on
behalf of a Medicare beneficiary, and the plan must accept the
physician's decision that expedited review is necessary.
It is the responsibility of the managed care organization to ensure
that all Medicare beneficiaries have a complete written explanation of
their benefit review rights, of the availability of expedited reviews,
of the steps to follow, and of the time limits for each step of the
procedures. When a request for benefits is being reviewed after an
initial denial, HCFA's regulation requires that managed care
organizations provide Medicare beneficiaries with a reasonable
opportunity to present evidence and allegations of fact or law related
to the issues in dispute, in person as well as in writing. Where the
review is expedited, involving a shorter time for decision, the plan
must inform Medicare beneficiaries of the conditions for submitting
evidence. Medicare regulations provide several levels of review by
entities outside the managed care organization. An outside peer review
organization provides immediate review of contested decisions to
discharge a Medicare beneficiary from the hospital, and if, after the
benefit review process is completed, the initial decision to deny the
benefit is upheld, an appeal is automatically sent to an independent
reviewer under contract with HCFA. In the preamble to the regulation,
HCFA also asks for comments concerning (1) guidelines for notice and
benefit review rights when the level of services currently being
provided to Medicare beneficiaries is being reduced, and (2) when
review of a reduction in the level of services should be expedited.
11. Should the Department's regulation require ERISA plans to
provide expedited review? If yes, under what circumstances should an
expedited review procedure be available?
12. Would the HCFA regulation's expedited review procedure provide
an appropriate maximum time frame if ERISA plans were required to adopt
expedited review procedures?
13. If ERISA plans were required to adopt an expedited review
procedure, how should terms such as ``medical urgency'' be defined?
Should the definition of medical urgency for purposes of an expedited
procedure be limited to situations where delay could jeopardize life or
health or the ability to regain maximum function, as in the HCFA
regulation, or should there be some lesser standard, such as
intractable pain or temporary inability to perform major life functions
such as employment?
14. What additional costs, if any, would be imposed on plans if an
expedited claims procedure along the lines of the HCFA regulation or
the NAIC model acts were required?
15. The HCFA expedited review procedure permits a Medicare
beneficiary, a representative of the Medicare beneficiary, or a
physician to request expedited review both for initial benefit requests
and for reconsideration of requests that have been denied. The managed
care organization decides if the request meets the criteria for
expedited treatment. However, any physician, such as a non-plan
physician, may request expedited review on behalf of a Medicare
beneficiary, and the managed care organization must accept the
physician's decision that expedited review is necessary. If ERISA plans
were required to adopt some form of expedited review, whose request
should initiate the process? Should this authority be restricted to a
physician affiliated with the plan, or any physician?
16. Should some claims, such as emergency hospital admissions or
hospital discharges, always have expedited review as a matter of
course?
17. If some form of expedited review is adopted for ERISA plans,
and under the terms of the regulation a claimant is entitled to an
expedited review, should the plan administrator be subject to penalties
for noncompliance with the procedure?
18. Would an expedited process be subject to overuse or abuse by
claimants or physicians? If so, how can this be avoided?
Other Aspects of Reviewing Claims
19. Would the HCFA regulation's system of permitting Medicare
beneficiaries or their representatives to present new evidence
throughout the benefit review process work for ERISA plans? Should
ERISA claimants be allowed to appear and present evidence in person at
some levels of the claims review process? What additional costs, if
any, would such requirements impose on plans?
20. In what, if any, situations should an ERISA plan service
provider be required to continue services at the previous level pending
reconsideration of a decision to reduce or terminate services? Should
any such requirement affect the maximum time frames for resolution of
claims involving such decisions?
21. In contrast to HCFA's Medicare regulation that provides several
levels of review by entities outside the managed care organization,
ERISA Sec. 503 provides that every plan shall provide ``a full and fair
review by an appropriate named fiduciary'' of a decision denying a
claim. Do the Department's minimum regulatory standards that implement
this requirement provide sufficient assurance of a disinterested
hearing? If not, what changes to the existing regulation would assure
adequate impartiality in the review process?
22. The Department's regulations at 29 CFR Sec. 2560.503-1(f)
require that upon denial, the plan shall provide ``[a]ppropriate
information as to the steps to be taken if the participant or
beneficiary wishes to submit his or her claim for review.'' The plan's
decision on review must include specific written reasons for the
decision as well as references to the pertinent plan provisions on
which the decision is based. Should plans be required to provide
claimants with more information concerning the claims review process
than is currently required by the regulation? Should a plan be required
to inform participants about the need to exhaust the plan's review
process, as suggested by Kinkead v. Southwestern Bell Corporation
Sickness & Accident Disability Benefit Plan, No. 96-2282, 1997 U.S.
App. LEXIS 6532 at *5 (8th Cir. April 9, 1997), or about judicial
recourse? If so, what information should be provided to participants?
23. Would it be helpful in reducing claims and claims review
requests to require plans to provide definitions of terms about which
there may be controversy or that may generate a
[[Page 47266]]
number of appeals, such as ``emergency services'' or ``urgently needed
services,'' as some States have done?
24. Health care plans subject to ERISA's claim procedure regulation
use certain terms to describe the process by which participants and
beneficiaries seek benefits or seek review of decisions to deny,
reduce, or limit benefits under the plan. Other regulators, such as
HCFA, and FEHBP, as well as the NAIC model Grievance Act and State
insurance laws, utilize different terms to describe similar procedures.
Should the Department attempt to conform or cross-reference its claims
procedure terminology to that of other regulatory schemes? If so, which
one?
Differences Among ERISA Plans
25. Is there a need to establish uniform minimum standards for all
ERISA plan claims procedures, including plans providing benefits
through federally qualified HMOs? Note: Under the current regulation,
federally qualified HMOs are now subject to a different set of
regulations under the Public Health Service Act. 29 CFR Sec. 2560.503-
1(j); 42 CFR Sec. 417.1 through 417.169. What would be the impact and
additional costs, if any, of requiring a uniform standard?
26. Under the Department's current regulation, certain plans
established or maintained pursuant to collective bargaining agreements
are deemed to comply with the existing regulation provided that
provisions concerning filing claims, the initial disposition of claims,
and a grievance and arbitration procedure to which denied claims are
subject are referenced in the collective bargaining agreement. 29 CFR
Sec. 2560.503-1(b)(2). Should claimants in such plans be subject to
differing claims procedures depending on the terms of the collective
bargaining agreement, or should there be a uniform claims procedure for
all ERISA plans? What costs, if any, would a uniform requirement
impose?
State Laws
28. Should any new regulation take into consideration State
regulatory requirements? If so, which requirements?
Data
29. Do ERISA plans and insurers maintain statistics on pre-
authorization requests, patient requests for referrals, claims
approvals, denials, appeals and court challenges? What information is
collected, how is it used, and to whom is it disclosed?
30. What proportion of pre-authorization requests, patient requests
for referrals, and requests for benefits are denied? What proportion of
denials are appealed? What proportion of appeals are successful? What
proportion of denied appeals are challenged in court by those seeking
benefits, and what proportion of court challenges are successful?
31. What proportion of pre-authorization requests, patient requests
for referrals and benefits, and what proportion of denials, appeals,
and court challenges are associated with questions of medical
necessity, benefit coverage, out-of-network care, or the participants'
insured status?
32. What dollar amounts are associated with pre-authorization
requests, patient requests for referrals, claims, denials, appeals, and
court challenges?
33. What is the usual timing associated with pre-authorization
requests, patient requests for referrals, claims, denials, appeals, and
court challenges?
34. Under Medicare, HCFA has broad authority to require reporting
of information. Information concerning appeals and grievances from
enrollees in Medicare managed care arrangements are collected by the
reconsideration contractor that performs reviews for HCFA, and are
reported to HCFA by provider and by type of complaint (i.e., non-plan
practitioner, mental health, emergency room, inpatient hospital, etc.).
Should ERISA plans be required to maintain a written log of benefit
denials and benefit reviews for examination by prospective enrollees?
In the alternative, should ERISA plans be required to record and make
available to claimants and the Secretary the number of requests for
review or appeals by claimants and whether the resolution was favorable
or unfavorable to the claimant? What costs, if any, would either
requirement impose on plans? Would it be useful and less burdensome to
have uniform reporting requirements for Medicare, ERISA and State
purposes?
Impact on Small Entities
In responding to the questions above, please address the
anticipated annual impact of any proposals on small businesses and
small plans (plans with fewer than 100 participants).
All submitted comments will be made a part of the record of
proceeding referred to herein and will be available for public
inspection.
Signed at Washington, D.C. this 27th day of August, 1997.
Olena Berg,
Assistant Secretary for Pension and Welfare Benefits, U.S. Department
of Labor.
[FR Doc. 97-23483 Filed 9-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-29-P
