Medical necessity

Last updated

Medical necessity is a legal doctrine in the United States related to activities that may be justified as reasonable, necessary, and/or appropriate based on evidence-based clinical standards of care. In contrast, unnecessary health care lacks such justification.

Contents

Other countries may have medical doctrines or legal rules covering broadly similar grounds. The term clinical medical necessity is also used.

Implementations of doctrine

Medicare

Medicare pays for medical items and services that are "reasonable and necessary" or "appropriate" for a variety of purposes. [1] By statute, Medicare may pay only for items and services that are "reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis or treatment of illness or injury or to improve the functioning of a malformed body member" unless there is another statutory authorization for payment. [2]

Medicare has a number of policies that describe coverage criteria, including National Coverage Determinations (NCDs) and Local Coverage Determinations (LCDs), [3] formerly known as Local Medical Review Policies (LMRP). [note 1]

In a small number of cases, Medicare may determine if a method of treating a patient should be covered on a case-by-case basis. Even if a service is medically determined to be "reasonable and necessary," coverage may be limited if the service is provided more frequently than allowed under Medicare coverage policies. [note 2]

Specific instances

Medical use of marijuana

The use of cannabis (also known as marijuana) for medical purposes is a notable medical necessity case. Cannabis is a plant whose active ingredients are widely reported by patients to be effective in pain control for various conditions, usually neuropathic in nature, in which common painkillers have not had great benefit. However, as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substance Act, it is illegal and is targeted by government, police, and anti-drug campaigners. In some states, possession is decriminalized even for non-medical purposes, but in other states possession, is a felony offense. In this case, the doctrine of medical necessity would be used by patients who believed marijuana to be beneficial to them if they were charged with the use, growing, or production of an illegal controlled substance relating to marijuana.

In several medical marijuana cases, the patients' physician has been willing to state to the court that the patient's condition requires this medicine and so the court should not interfere. However, the US Supreme Court outrightly rejected that defense in the landmark case United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative , which ruled that is no medical necessity exception to drug laws and that the federal government is free to raid, arrest, prosecute, and imprison patients who are using medical marijuana no matter if the medicine is crucially necessary to them. On the other hand, in Gonzales v. Raich , the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals told a patient in extreme pain that state law allowing medical use could not be relied on, but if arrested, the user could seek to use medical necessity as a defence.

In Maryland, a bill signed by Governor Robert Ehrlich, became law in 2003 to permit patients to use medical necessity defense to marijuana possession in the state. The maximum penalty for such users cannot exceed $100. However, the law does not prevent federal prosecution of patients since the federal law does not recognize medical necessity. [4]

See also

Notes

Related Research Articles

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) is an act of the United States Congress, passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospital emergency departments that accept payments from Medicare to provide an appropriate medical screening examination (MSE) to anyone seeking treatment for a medical condition, regardless of citizenship, legal status, or ability to pay. Participating hospitals may not transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment except with the informed consent or stabilization of the patient or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Medicare (United States)</span> U.S. government health insurance for the old and disabled

Medicare is a government national health insurance program in the United States, begun in 1965 under the Social Security Administration (SSA) and now administered by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). It primarily provides health insurance for Americans aged 65 and older, but also for some younger people with disability status as determined by the SSA, including people with end stage renal disease and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1996 California Proposition 215</span> California law permitting medical marijuana

Proposition 215, or the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, is a California law permitting the use of medical cannabis despite marijuana's lack of the normal Food and Drug Administration testing for safety and efficacy. It was enacted, on November 5, 1996, by means of the initiative process, and passed with 5,382,915 (55.6%) votes in favor and 4,301,960 (44.4%) against.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act</span> United States federal law concerning health information

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 is a United States Act of Congress enacted by the 104th United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on August 21, 1996. It modernized the flow of healthcare information, stipulated how personally identifiable information maintained by the healthcare and healthcare insurance industries should be protected from fraud and theft, and addressed some limitations on healthcare insurance coverage. It generally prohibits healthcare providers and healthcare businesses, called covered entities, from disclosing protected information to anyone other than a patient and the patient's authorized representatives without their consent. With limited exceptions, it does not restrict patients from receiving information about themselves. It does not prohibit patients from voluntarily sharing their health information however they choose, nor does it require confidentiality where a patient discloses medical information to family members, friends, or other individuals not a part of a covered entity.

Dual-eligible beneficiaries refers to those qualifying for both Medicare and Medicaid benefits. In the United States, approximately 9.2 million people are eligible for "dual" status. Dual-eligibles make up 14% of Medicaid enrollment, yet they are responsible for approximately 36% of Medicaid expenditures. Similarly, duals total 20% of Medicare enrollment, and spend 31% of Medicare dollars. Dual-eligibles are often in poorer health and require more care compared with other Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Reconstructive surgery</span> Surgery to restore form and function

Reconstructive surgery is surgery performed to restore normal appearance and function to body parts malformed by a disease or medical condition.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Brownie Mary</span> American medical cannabis activist (1922–1999)

Mary Jane Rathbun, popularly known as Brownie Mary, was an American medical cannabis rights activist. As a hospital volunteer at San Francisco General Hospital, she became known for baking and distributing cannabis brownies to AIDS patients. Along with activist Dennis Peron, Rathbun lobbied for the legalization of cannabis for medical use, and she helped pass San Francisco Proposition P (1991) and California Proposition 215 (1996) to achieve those goals. She also contributed to the establishment of the San Francisco Cannabis Buyers Club, the first medical cannabis dispensary in the United States.

In English law, the defence of necessity recognises that there may be situations of such overwhelming urgency that a person must be allowed to respond by breaking the law. There have been very few cases in which the defence of necessity has succeeded, and in general terms there are very few situations where such a defence could even be applicable. The defining feature of such a defence is that the situation is not caused by another person and that the accused was in genuine risk of immediate harm or danger.

In United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, 532 U.S. 483 (2001), the United States Supreme Court rejected the common-law medical necessity defense to crimes enacted under the federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970, regardless of their legal status under the laws of states such as California that recognize a medical use for marijuana. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative was represented by Gerald Uelmen.

Expanded access or compassionate use is the use of an unapproved drug or medical device under special forms of investigational new drug applications (IND) or IDE application for devices, outside of a clinical trial, by people with serious or life-threatening conditions who do not meet the enrollment criteria for the clinical trial in progress.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legal history of cannabis in the United States</span>

In the United States, increased restrictions and labeling of cannabis as a poison began in many states from 1906 onward, and outright prohibitions began in the 1920s. By the mid-1930s cannabis was regulated as a drug in every state, including 35 states that adopted the Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act. The first national regulation was the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.

In the United States, Medicare fraud is the claiming of Medicare health care reimbursement to which the claimant is not entitled. There are many different types of Medicare fraud, all of which have the same goal: to collect money from the Medicare program illegitimately.

A national coverage determination (NCD) is a United States nationwide determination of whether Medicare will pay for an item or service. It is a form of utilization management and forms a medical guideline on treatment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cannabis in Oregon</span> Use of cannabis in Oregon

Cannabis in Oregon is legal for both medical and recreational use. In recent decades, the U.S. state of Oregon has had a number of legislative, legal, and cultural events surrounding use of cannabis. Oregon was the first state to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of cannabis, and among the first to authorize its use for medical purposes. An attempt to recriminalize possession of small amounts of cannabis was turned down by Oregon voters in 1997.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cannabis in Colorado</span> Overview of the use and culture of cannabis in Colorado, U.S.

In Colorado, cannabis has been legal for medical use since 2000 and for recreational use since late 2012. On November 7, 2000, 54% of Colorado voters approved Amendment 20, which amended the State Constitution to allow the use of marijuana in the state for approved patients with written medical consent. Under this law, patients may possess up to 2 ounces (57 g) of medical marijuana and may cultivate no more than six marijuana plants. Patients who were caught with more than this in their possession could argue "affirmative defense of medical necessity" but were not protected under state law with the rights of those who stayed within the guidelines set forth by the state. The Colorado Amendment 64, which was passed by voters on November 6, 2012, led to recreational legalization in December 2012 and state-licensed retail sales in January 2014. The policy has led to cannabis tourism. There are two sets of policies in Colorado relating to cannabis use: those for medicinal cannabis and for recreational drug use along with a third set of rules governing hemp.

Several authors have put forth arguments concerning the legality of the war on drugs. In his essay The Drug War and the Constitution, libertarian philosopher Paul Hager makes the case that the War on Drugs in the United States is an illegal form of prohibition, which violates the principles of a limited government embodied in the United States Constitution.

Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that, under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Congress may criminalize the production and use of homegrown cannabis even if state law allows its use for medicinal purposes.

Pharmaceutical fraud involves activities that result in false claims to insurers or programs such as Medicare in the United States or equivalent state programs for financial gain to a pharmaceutical company. There are several different schemes used to defraud the health care system which are particular to the pharmaceutical industry. These include: Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) Violations, Off Label Marketing, Best Price Fraud, CME Fraud, Medicaid Price Reporting, and Manufactured Compound Drugs. Examples of fraud cases include the GlaxoSmithKline $3 billion settlement, Pfizer $2.3 billion settlement, and Merck $650 million settlement. Damages from fraud can be recovered by use of the False Claims Act, most commonly under the qui tam provisions which rewards an individual for being a "whistleblower", or relator (law).

<i>Conant v. Walters</i>

Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629, is a legal case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the right of physicians to recommend medical marijuana. The Court of Appeals affirmed the earlier decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, which was filed under the caption Conant v. McCaffrey. Though the case involved chronic patients with untreatable diseases, the decision does not name these conditions as a prerequisite, nor does it limit drugs which may or may not be illegal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legal history of cannabis in Canada</span> Aspect of history

The Cannabis Act (C-45) of June, 2018 paved the way for the legalization of cannabis in Canada on 17 October 2018. Police and prosecution services in all Canadian jurisdictions are currently capable of pursuing criminal charges for cannabis marketing without a licence issued by Health Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada has held that the federal Parliament has the power to criminalize the possession of cannabis and that doing so does not infringe upon the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Ontario Court of Appeal and the Superior Court of Ontario have, however, held that the absence of a statutory provision for medical marijuana is unconstitutional, and to that extent the federal law is of no force and/or effect if a prescription is obtained. The recreational use of cannabis has been legalized by the federal government, and took effect on 17 October 2018.

References

  1. Miller, Nancy W. (August 2002). "What is medical necessity?". Physician's News Digest. Physician's News Digest, Inc. Archived from the original on 2012-04-18. Retrieved 4 January 2020.
  2. "Sec. 1862. [42 U.S.C. § 1395y]: EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE AND MEDICARE AS SECONDARY PAYER", The Social Security Laws, United States Social Security Administration, Sec. 1862. [42 U.S.C. 1395y] (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no payment may be made under part A or part B for any expenses incurred for items or services— (1)(A) which, except for items and services described in a succeeding subparagraph, are not reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis or treatment of illness or injury or to improve the functioning of a malformed body member,....
  3. "Medicare LCDs and NCDs in Medical Coding and Billing". Dummies. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Retrieved 4 January 2020.
  4. "Becoming a Patient in Maryland". Americans for Safe Access. Retrieved 4 January 2020.