A Critical Examination of Independent Medical Review Decision-making for Cardiovascular Procedures Shows Low Rate of Evidence Citation in Reviews.

Abstract

The California Independent Medical Review (IMR) program was created in 2001 to provide an independent, external evaluation of insurers' denials of coverage of health services. We sought to evaluate the quality and comprehensiveness of data used to support IMR decision-making between 2015 and 2020. Of the 159 cases submitted to IMR regarding denials of cardiovascular procedures, 52% of these denials were overturned by IMR, thus restoring coverage. Despite a state-wide requirement that specific references to medical and scientific evidence should be provided in IMR reviews, fewer than a quarter of reviews cited any evidence to support decision-making. Slightly more than one third of IMR review decisions were inconsistent with recommendations from professional societies and peer-reviewed evidence; the primary reason for these inconsistencies was that invasive interventions were often recommended by reviewers before utilizing guideline-directed medical or less invasive therapies. Our findings highlight an opportunity for improvement in the quality of IMR decision-making through a more consistent use of available scientific evidence to guide clinical reasoning.