Abstract
ObjectiveThe purpose of this study is to analyze how the largest insurance companies support their medical necessity policies regarding osteochondral allograft transplantation (OCA) and to determine whether the literature they cite in their policies is of a high level of evidence (LOE).DesignThe 10 largest national health insurance companies were identified. Each payer was contacted via phone or email to obtain their coverage policy regarding OCA. For each policy, the medical necessity criteria were recorded, and all cited references were screened. For all references applicable to OCA, the LOE was recorded, and each reference was screened to determine whether they mentioned the specific criteria reported in the policies.ResultsThe medical policies for 6 of the 10 national health insurance companies were identified. These 6 policies cited a collective total of 102 applicable references. Most of these studies were an LOE of IV (n = 58, 56.9%) and an LOE of V (n = 18, 17.6%). There were similarities amongst the medical necessity criteria between different commercial payers; however, most criteria were poorly supported by the cited literature.ConclusionsOur results demonstrate that commercial insurance companies utilize studies that are of a low LOE when justifying their medical necessity criteria. Moreover, these cited studies infrequently support or mention the commercial payers' criteria. Future studies should continue to explore how well-supported insurance policies are with the goal of potentially increasing access and authorization for well-supported treatment modalities.