Pregnancy Diagnosis: Controversy Over PAMG-1 Testing

1011 Words3 Pages

A review of the records reveals the member to be an adult female with a birth date of 08/26/1985. The member had a diagnosis of pregnancy with leaking of amniotic fluid and suspicion of rupture of fetal membranes (ROM). The member’s treating provider, Deepti Pruthi, MD ordered a ROM Plus testing, which was performed on 03/04/2015. The carrier has denied coverage of the PAMG-1 testing as experimental/ investigational and not medically necessary. There is a letter from the carrier to the member dated 06/22/2015, which states in part: “Placental Alpha Microglobulin-1 (PAMG-1) testing is regarded as experimental and is denied.” There is a letter from the member dated 02/17/2016, which states in part: “As stated by my previous letter … …show more content…

Both PAMG-1 and ROM Plus testing use CPT Code 84112 for billing purposes). Therefore, unless quoted, further references will be made using the name of the actual test performed on the date of service under appeal. Final External Review Decision: The carrier’s decision in denying coverage for the ROM Plus testing [CPT code 84112] that was performed on 03/04/2015 as experimental/investigational was appropriate. The ROM Plus testing [CPT code 84112] that was performed on 03/04/2015 was not medically necessary for the treatment of this member’s condition. Given the fact that standard methods of diagnosis are still the standard of care and widely used and available in all facilities, the expected benefit of the requested ROM Plus test is not more likely to be more beneficial to the claimant than any available standard health care service or treatment. It is not clear if the adverse risks, of the requested health care service, are substantially increased over those of available standard health care services or treatments, because there is not enough data on which to make an assessment of such …show more content…

Omitting this test and performing all standard tests for diagnosis of this condition would not adversely affect the member’s condition or the quality of the medical care rendered. Therefore, the carrier’s decision in denying coverage for the ROM Plus testing [CPT code 84112] that was performed on 03/04/2015 as experimental/investigational, was appropriate. The ROM Plus testing [CPT code 84112] that was performed on 03/04/2015 was not medically necessary for the treatment of this member’s condition. Given the fact that standard methods of diagnosis are still the standard of care and widely used and available in all facilities, the expected benefit of the requested ROM Plus test is not more likely to be more beneficial to the claimant than any available standard health care service or treatment. It is not clear if the adverse risks, of the requested health care service, are substantially increased over those of available standard health care services or treatments, because there is not enough data on which to make an assessment of such risks. The previous denial should be

Open Document