My DS appeal

ampt

WWBD? What would bacon do?
Joined
Jan 13, 2014
Messages
107
Location
Discovery Bay, CA
Hi all. I’m newly approved and SCHEDULED (*queue singing angels*). My DH and I are doing this TOGETHER. Our DS journeys are VERY different. His BMI was over 50, so Kaiser outsourced his DS to Dr. Rabkin in San Francisco, CA. I had to FIGHT for mine (BMI below 50, by 18 pounds). Here is my saga in a (large) nutshell:

July 26th: Kaiser WLS Intro Seminar

August 11th: Fremont Kaiser Bariatric Orientation

August 23rd: my first appointment with my WLS surgeon. No mention of DS. My DH's appt was same day, later, different surgeon. DH was told about DS because his BMI is over 50. He mentioned the DS to me as an option later that evening. He started doing research. Before long, I was convinced, especially since it would mean that we would have the same surgery and the same post-op lifestyle.

August 30th: phone appt with my surgeon to discuss DS, he was NOT for it, too dangerous, malnutrition, high-risk surgery

September 17th: Sent in Kaiser appeal to get out of network referral for Dr. Rabkin

October 18th: Kaiser appeal denied; "not medically indicated"

October 29th: Requested my medical records from Kaiser to check up on my record

October 31st: Consult with Dr. Rabkin (same day as my husbands, who had a referral); paid for mine out of pocket to get a letter of medical necessity from Dr. Rabkin to strengthen my IMR case to DMHC

November 15th: Faxed IMR to DMHC

December 17th: Received letter of qualification from DHMC (32 days later)

December 30th: Received copy of Kaiser’s letter sent to DHMC: no psych eval, no nut eval, not completeing “several clinical items” as recommended by Dr. Rabkin.

January 2nd: Faxed rebuttal letter and materials to DHMC to prove that Kaiser had misinformed the DHMC about my meeting with a nutritionist, and them denying me a psych evaluation because I did not meet their ± 10% weight loss prerequisite, ALSO, my BMI was listed as 45 when it was 48.

January 10th: IMR denial. DS was not clinically indicated “AT THIS TIME.” Clearly, the reviewer disregarded evidence in my file and then cited the absence of that evidence as a reason for upholding the denial (ludicrous), and the reviewer did not answer the question whether the DS was appropriate for me with a BMI <50. (Nearly 60 days after my IMR was sent in!!)

January 16th: Talked to compliance manager at DMHC, he said that once I met with nutritionist (already done) and had psych evaluation, I could apply for a re-review WITH KAISER, and if denied AGAIN, I could re-apply for another IMR.

January 16th: I sent in another complaint to Kaiser Member Services that I was never given a denial for the psych evaluation in writing (DMHC no-no)

January 17th: After my advocate talking to the compliance manager’s supervisor, he assured me (us) that he would look over my case, and get back to us to see if he could help. I gathered all of my documentation and my advocate sent a STRONGLY worded letter.

January 24th: DHMC contact got back to me (us) to say he was going to confer with DMHC attorneys regarding reviewer’s language in IMR denial.

January 27th: Diagnosed with moderate sleep apnea

January 29th: Talked to Kaiser Member Services about getting denial in writing. Fremont Bariatric told her that I was never actually denied but that I did not meet the requirements for such an appointment (same thing, right?) Also, received an official letter from Kaiser Member Services saying they would get me a resolution in 30 days (already 13 days after I submitted the complaint)

January 30th: DMHC contact communicated that 1) IMR reviewer did not endorse Kaiser’s position that DS was too risky, so presuming basis for denial was overcome. 2) Reviewer said “not clinically indicated at this time” because of psych eval and nut eval, SO once I have those done, he would bring it to Kaiser’s attention.

January 31st: Sent in additional documentation of Kaiser’s “10% prerequisite weight loss” to DMHC contact.

February 4th: Psych evaluation with Dr. Bill Hartman (paid out-of-pocket)

February 10th: received glowing psych eval (“I’m not crazy! My mother had me tested!”); Forwarded to DMHC contact.

February 11th: DMHC contact had spoken with Kaiser, and they were reviewing my situation.

February 13th: DMHC contact spoke with Kaiser. They didn’t want to accept” my out-of-network psych eval. They wanted one of their staff to perform the evaluation which they would schedule right away. I agreed to this, just to try to get my approval done faster!! DHMC contact also said Kaiser admitted that nobody has to go through any pre-op classes or weight loss, etc. just the nut and psych evals, which they are NOT to deny, and if they are being forced to do so in the future, he was to be contacted directly.

February 14th: Received letter from Kaiser Member Services saying the psych evaluation is a pre-op requirement and in order to get that requirement finished I needed to lose the prerequisite weight; something about needing to have a “consistent process” for the patients.

February 14th: No call from Kaiser to set up psych eval because they reconsidered their position and were putting together my AUTORIZATION PAPERWORK!

February 19th: Approval for consultation (already had October 31st); in turn, Dr. Rabkin’s report sent right back to Kaiser to start process for surgery approval.

March 3rd: Call from Outside Referrals “handler” to tell me that she cannot approve me for surgery until all my pre-op testing is done (chest x-ray, echocardiogram (because of my sleep apnea), EKG, PCP physical and lab work) and PCP issues clearance.

March 4th: PCP physical, lab work, chest x-ray

March 6th: echocardiogram, EKG; PCP emailed me later in the day to tell me all results were normal.

March 7th: Left message for Outside Referrals that all testing was complete, and PCP put in letter to clear me for surgery. BTW, she doesn’t work Fridays!

March 10th: Left ANOTHER message for Outside referrals; was called back shortly after to say she had all of the components, and would be forwarding the surgery authorization to Dr. Rabkin’s office in the next couple of days.

March 13th: Outside Referrals had contacted Dr. Rabkin’s office and said there was an issue with something in the authorization paperwork, but that it was alright to go ahead and schedule the surgery; tentatively scheduled for May 15th pending Dr. Rabkin’s approval.

March 17th: LUCK O’ THE IRISH! Surgery confirmed for May 13th!!

Again, I could not have done it without DianaCox and Larra -- Hundreds of emails (literally!), tough love, patience, encouragement. They were instrumental in getting my appeal granted, and surgery approved. I'm here to PAY IT FORWARD.
 
Again, I could not have done it without DianaCox and Larra -- Hundreds of emails (literally!), tough love, patience, encouragement. They were instrumental in getting my appeal granted, and surgery approved. I'm here to PAY IT FORWARD.

That is awesome. This site has some real experts on it. It is unbelievable how the people on this site really work with people to figure out all kind of issues from getting approvals to how to keep some one alive after they went to a quack doctor. Oh sorry I think I was starting to have a flash back.
 
Larra and I got pretty peeved by the way the whole thing was handled - Angie had an excellent case and Kaiser was playing games, and it APPEARED that the DMHC external reviewer did not handle the review properly. But intentionally or not, the reviewer actually overruled Kaiser's basis for denial (by not mentioning it) and only upheld the denial based on incomplete pre-op requirements. It was also the DMHC supervisor I pushed to take the non-reviewable case up on review, who contributed to greasing the skids to get Kaiser to admit they had to approve Angie because they no longer had any reason not to. But I doubt Kaiser would have admitted it, or accepted the outside psych review (Kaiser refused to refer Angie for her psych review as a way of sandbagging her whole request for a DS) without pressure from the DMHC - and that is NOT fair to patients who don't have our expert help and don't know they can fight this kind of abuse.

Larra and I hope to leverage this case and how it was handled to getting the DMHC to closely scrutinize the Kaiser bariatric program's questionable (or, to call a spade a spade, in my opinion, UNETHICAL) behavior.

On this case, and many others, Larra and I spend HOURS going over the same $#%^& issues, over and over, and Kaiser tries sneaky ways to prevent the same thing from happening each time. They have commissioned extremely slanted 18 page "reports" and submitted them to the DMHC trying to present is as some kind of "science" that proves the DS is dangerous, and then not sending it to the patient during the appeal so they patient can rebut it (and really, without Larra's and my help, the vast majority of patients would have been completely unable to do so). When they are told they can't make pre-op weight loss mandatory, they call it a "recommendation" - but then refuse to refer the patient for a psych review to complete the requirements until the patient has lost the specified amount of weight. It's a never-ending, unethical practice of continually moving the goal posts every time someone wins a case against them.

All Larra and I really want is to be put out of our pro bono business, because we are no longer needed!
 
@DianaCox And @Larra You Guys Are amazing. When I think about all the stuff that you 2 do and giving of your time and knowledge so freely. Plus there are so many other vets on here that just really help everyone from start to maintenance it makes me get all choked up and mushy. I'm not a very sentimental person but it really moves me. :meparto::Mess:

People can make all the sights they want but they will never be the same caliber as what site vets like: Larra, Diana, En, Southernlady and the rest of the long times vets who continue to give and give and give...
 
@DianaCox It sounds like each time someone gets "sandbagged" it is for a different reason. And being that they are inconsistent with their refusals/denials, it is difficult for the DMHC to really nail them on any one thing. It makes me sick. I have loved Kaiser up until this point (ie when I disagreed with their handling of a procedure, with the exception of a prickly OB/GYN while I was pregnant). It truly goes to show that YOU need to be an ADVOCATE for yourself, and not just accept what the doctors/nurses/surgeons are shoveling. It is so important to educate yourself, because as Ben and I have found, some doctors don't even know what the DS is, and how it affects our bodies differently (ER doctors, especially).
 
The DMHC is a toothless tiger - they have regulatory authority that they often seem afraid to exercise, and are unduly deferential to the insurance companies.

Several years ago, I submitted an appeal to the DMHC regarding reconstructive surgery. I argued that California law (Health & Safety Code 1367.63 http://www.dmhc.ca.gov/library/stat...ebhelp/___1367.63._Reconstructive_surgery.htm) mandated that lack of medical necessity - which is ALWAYS the basis of denials for reconstructive surgery - is inappropriate as a basis of denying RS in California when the other factors ((a) abnormal structure of the body, (b) caused by a disease, (c) for which RS can improve appearance to the extent possible, and (d) such improvement is more than minimal) are proven. The DMHC agreed and ordered my insurance company to cover my procedures - and my insurance company REFUSED to follow the DMHC's orders.

What ensued was a ridiculously long and toothless process. Instead of taking any sort of legal action, the DMHC instituted a "non-routine survey" (I'm pretty sure it had a different name, but I'm too lazy to look it up now) of my insurance company's practices with respect to RS. By two months after the denial was overturned and blown off, but no corrective action was taken by the DMHC that was going to resolve the issues quickly, I got a law firm to take my case as a class action against my insurance company in parallel with whatever the DMHC was doing. The basis of the complaint was Unfair Competition law - that my insurance company had an unfair advantage over their competitors who FOLLOWED the law.

What followed was about three f'ing years of "After you, Alfonse; no after YOU, Gaston." My insurance company argued to the Superior Court that this was a DMHC regulatory matter, and that the court should defer to the DMHC's long, slow, ridiculously deferential process. By the way, the DMHC regulatory process that was being "followed" has deadlines for things getting done - but NO consequence if the deadlines are not met! IIRC, the entire process was supposed to be resolved within 180 days - it was more like 2.5 years before it was concluded. In the meantime, my insurance company eventually failed to get the court case stayed while the DMHC played their games - but of course succeeded in delaying things for a LONG time. The court decided that the case was not worthy of class action status, but approved it as a multiparty tort case, so I was still the representative plaintiff for a class of people who were improperly denied coverage for RS.

Ultimately, there was a settlement in the court case, which occurred nearly simultaneously with the DMHC's long delayed action in the case - the DMHC found that my insurance company was not compliant with the law, and the insurance company was forced to admit that morbid obesity is a disease that meets the term of the statute (which was a stupid angle to attack application of the statute - they would have been better off if they argued that the statute is too vague in the term "abnormal structure"), and to implement changes in compliance with the statute. But since then, the insurance company (and other insurance companies which have similarly been investigated and their RC denials criticized - you can look up these holdings here: http://www.dmhc.ca.gov/library/reports/med_survey/med_default.aspx) has become more sophisticated in papering their denials, and I doubt they are paying for very many RS anyway - because (1) people still don't even know that they can request coverage for RC; (2) reconstructive surgeons don't WANT to submit for insurance coverage, because it is extra work for them, they will get reimbursed at a lower rate and they know their patients will pay their full boat rate anyway, so they are not incentivized to suggest that insurance might pay; and (3) the insurance companies obviously don't ever tell their patients that they could get RS covered and are better at denying anyway (e.g., by saying the patient does NOT have an "abnormal structure of the body" just normal results of weight loss).

By the way, based on my case, my law firm also sued BlueCross/BlueShield and got a nice settlement out of them (which IS public: http://gilardi.com/bluecrosslitigation/) and they are currently suing Kaiser is for RC denials - the class action for that case was recently certified, and the trial is scheduled for later this year: http://apps.alameda.courts.ca.gov/d...action.html&CaseNbr=RG12616206&CurrBatchNbr=1.
 
Interesting... "Kaiser has a pattern and practice of systematically denying requests for RS for excess skin following bariatric surgery for morbid obesity. Kaiser systematically ignores both the functional impairment standard and the "normal appearance" prongs..., and, in doing so, systematically violates the statue. Kaiser never gets to the question of whether RS to remove excess skin is required to improve function or to create a normal appearance to the extent possible because it SYSTEMATICALLY DENIES ANY REQUEST FOR RS TO REMOVE EXCESS SKIN ON THE BASIS THAT THE SERVICES ARE NOT COVERED BECAUSE THE ARE COSMETIC."

And... "rather than provide coverage for RS... Kaiser directs affect members to its for profit cosmetic surgery centers where Kaiser charges them on a fee-for-service basis for treatment that is required to be covered"
 

Latest posts

Back
Top