Propose a change

Title 26 Insurance Code

Write the words of this act the way you think they should read. Solon shows your change as a redline against the published text and pins it to that exact text, so it can never be applied to wording you did not see.

Change 1

What to do with it
As published

26-55-106. Requirements applicable to persons reviewing appeals.

(a) Each health insurer or contracted utilization review entity shall ensure that all appeals of adverse determinations are reviewed by a physician or other appropriate licensed health care provider who has: (i) Sufficient medical knowledge in an applicable practice area or specialty; (ii) Knowledge of the coverage criteria; (iii) A current and unrestricted license to practice within the scope of their medical profession in a state, territory, commonwealth of the United States or the District of Columbia; (iv) Not been employed by the health insurer or contracted utilization review entity or been under contract with the health insurer or contracted utilization review entity other than to participate in one (1) or more of the health insurer or contracted utilization review entity's health care provider networks or to perform reviews of appeals, or otherwise have any financial interest in the outcome of the appeal; (v) Not been directly involved in the initial adverse determination; and (vi) Considered all known clinical aspects of the health care service under review, including but not limited to, a review of all pertinent medical records provided to the health insurer or contracted utilization review entity by the enrollee's health care provider, any relevant records provided to the health insurer or contracted utilization review entity by a health care facility, any pertinent material provided by the enrollee and any medical literature provided to the health insurer or contracted utilization review entity by the health care provider. (b) The enrollee's health care provider may request upon the initiation of an appeal that the appeal from an adverse determination be made by a physician or a specialist in the area of medicine under appeal.

Your change, as a redline

26-55-106. Requirements applicable to persons reviewing appeals.

(a) Each health insurer or contracted utilization review entity shall ensure that all appeals of adverse determinations are reviewed by a physician or other appropriate licensed health care provider who has: (i) Sufficient medical knowledge in an applicable practice area or specialty; (ii) Knowledge of the coverage criteria; (iii) A current and unrestricted license to practice within the scope of their medical profession in a state, territory, commonwealth of the United States or the District of Columbia; (iv) Not been employed by the health insurer or contracted utilization review entity or been under contract with the health insurer or contracted utilization review entity other than to participate in one (1) or more of the health insurer or contracted utilization review entity's health care provider networks or to perform reviews of appeals, or otherwise have any financial interest in the outcome of the appeal; (v) Not been directly involved in the initial adverse determination; and (vi) Considered all known clinical aspects of the health care service under review, including but not limited to, a review of all pertinent medical records provided to the health insurer or contracted utilization review entity by the enrollee's health care provider, any relevant records provided to the health insurer or contracted utilization review entity by a health care facility, any pertinent material provided by the enrollee and any medical literature provided to the health insurer or contracted utilization review entity by the health care provider. (b) The enrollee's health care provider may request upon the initiation of an appeal that the appeal from an adverse determination be made by a physician or a specialist in the area of medicine under appeal.

One line that says what changes, such as "Halve the dog tax".

Who it helps, what it costs, what it fixes. It is what persuades people to support it.

A proposal here is not law. Support on Solon is evidence that people want the change; the official route says what it takes to make it law.

Sign in to file your proposal. What you have written stays on this page.

Sign in to file it