Home > Green Journal, Journal Articles, Obstetrics > Thrombophilias and Insurance Companies: The problem with ACOG’s recent Practice Bulletin

Thrombophilias and Insurance Companies: The problem with ACOG’s recent Practice Bulletin

In this month’s Green Journal, ACOG published Practice Bulletin #111 “Inherited Thrombophilias in Pregnancy”.  This practice bulletin was an attempt to coalesce the available evidence on thrombophilias in pregnancy and to make some evidence based recommendations for how obstetricians should deal with the issue.

This is all well and good, but what happened next was not.  A few weeks after publication ACOG retracted the Practice Bulletin.  Though we don’t know for sure, this was likely due to an outcry the many MFMs who don’t agree with the published recommendations.  As of now, it is no longer available online, and exists only in the pages of the printed journal.  Per ACOG, a new version will be out this summer.

So why did this happen?

Basically, it was because ACOG gutted any future for thrombophilia research with the following two recommendations (both of which were based only on level II evidence)

“Inherited thrombophilia testing in women who have experienced recurrent fetal loss or placental abruption is not recommended because it is unclear whether anticoagulation reduces recurrence.”

and

“There is insufficient evidence to recommend screening or treatment for thrombophilias in women with previous IUGR or preeclampsia.”

So are these recommendations wrong?  Its arguable.

The first statement that thrombophilia screening isn’t justified in cases of idiopathic abruption certainly seems to be a little suspect, given the multiple papers that have suggested an association between Factor V Leiden and abruption.   True, we do not know if treatment will reduce this risk, but is that a reason not to screen at all?  Would finding out a woman has a thrombophilia not affect her future care, whether it be by choosing not to use birth control pills, or to use some prophylactic anticoagulant around the time of a future leg injury or surgery?

The second statement is also a bit problematic.   It is fair to say that there is insufficient evidence to recommend treatment for thrombophilias in women with previous IUGR or pre-eclampsia, but to say that we should not screen in this population seems a little premature.   I wonder this statement was made based on a logical misinterpretation of recent data.

A recent study by Said et al demonstrated that in a low risk population screened for thrombophilias, one could not identify a connection between any of the thromophilias and IUGR or pre-eclampsia.  Based on this study, one might say reasonably that it is not worth it to screen for thrombophilias in a low risk population, as finding them will not predict bad outcomes.   But is this the same as what ACOG’s statement is forbidding?  I would say not.  ACOG is saying not only that we shouldn’t screen in low risk populations, but that also we shouldn’t screen in women of already demonstrated risk.  This is not fair, or at least not evidence based.  At this point, we don’t know if thrombophilas detected in women of already elevated risk are clinically meaningful. We know that in low risk people they don’t have a great effect, but this certainly doesn’t mean that they have no meaning in other women.  There are many risk factors for coronary artery disease that have greater meaning in constellation with other factors than they do alone.  It is too much to believe a similar situation could be at play here?   As such, there is very little reason for ACOG to “recommend” anything at all.  The right answer was “there can be no recommendation as we don’t really know.”

So why is this so important, and why did it get retracted?  A lot of it has to do with how insurance companies work, and how this statement would affect reimbursement for testing, and in turn future research.

As most of my readers know, insurance companies make money by collecting more in premiums than they pay out (and by earning money on the float.)  The best way to maintain this delta is to pay out as little as possible.   Now thrombophilia testing is rather expensive, so if they can find some way to not pay for it they will.   In fact, they would just love to have a document they could point to and say “See! There is no reason to do this testing.”  And this is exactly what ACOG handed them.

Insurance companies deny claims by claiming either that the test or treatment is not medically necessary, or that it is experimental/investigational.  By making the statement they did, ACOG made it very easy for any appeal reviewer to come down on the side of the insurer, and not cover testing.

So is this is a problem?  I think so, and I think a lot of other people thought so too, leading to enough groundswell to make ACOG retract the statement.

Thrombophilias are still are area of active research.  To say that we shouldn’t do testing in these situations is premature.  It would be fair to say that we don’t know if it is helpful, but to recommend against it is a statement “unencumbered by evidence.”

Future research in thrombophilias requires that we have a population of women who are known to be positive for some of these mutations.  This will only be available if we continue to do at least some testing in women who have demonstrated risk factors for having these mutations.    Will this testing help these specific women?  The only right answer is that we don’t know.   What we do know, however, is that if we completely stop running these tests research will grind to a halt, and we may never figure this thing out.

Now there are folks that completely disagree, hence the original practice bulletin.  Its not like it was a typo; it was indeed the opinion of a group of well educated people.  Perhaps thrombophilia testing is a waste of money.  Maybe there is some magic line of cost/benefit that this testing falls under.

But because so many disagree with these statements, I’m glad that ACOG pulled it back.  It will be interesting to see what replaces it, and whether it will leave room for testing in women of particularly high risk.


Inherited thrombophilia polymorphisms and pregnancy outcomes in nulliparous women.  Said JM, Higgins JR, Moses EK, Walker SP, Borg AJ, Monagle PT, Brennecke SP.  Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Jan;115(1):5-13.

ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 111: Inherited thrombophilias in pregnancy.  Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Apr;115(4):877-87.   American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Practice Bulletins-Obstetrics.

  1. April 26, 2010 at 11:19 pm

    I was surprised by the the Bulletin but much more surprised ACOG retracted it so quickly. When it comes to cost decisions I guess we will have to ask ourselves who is paying the bills. When it comes to individual cases it will be interesting to see how these quotes surface in litigation as they so often do.

    Like

  2. May 22, 2010 at 10:04 am

    Hello guys,

    My name is Peter and I am from Stirling in the United Kingdom. I have not long ago discovered this forum and I like it alot.
    I am a little bit shy so I will not write much about me but maybe when I will get confortable, you will get to know me better!
    My main hobbies are playing chess and watching movies. I also like outdoor activites but the temperature has been horrible for the last weeks or so here in Stirling.

    I was wondering if anyone else here is from the UK too?

    I am happy to have joined this forum!
    Have a nice day!
    🙂

    Like

  3. Jamie
    May 27, 2010 at 6:18 am

    Hi Dr. Fogelson!

    Can you talk a little bit about how clotting disorders are handled in labor and post partum? Are mothers with thrombophilias treated differently if they undergo c/s, even if their history did not warrant treatment during pregnancy?

    http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/22/science/la-sci-maternal-deaths-20100523

    The mother in this story had a family history of clotting disorders and was at increased risk for VTE following her c/s. I’m not asking you to critique her care, and there’s nothing in the story to say that her thrombophilia was not treated, but can you explain why a woman with her risk factors couldn’t be given a little heparin, just in case?

    I apologize if the question is horrible. I’m the worst sort of back-seat clinician — an *aspiring* CNM student. But I am curious to hear your opinion.

    Thanks for indulging me.

    Like

    • May 29, 2010 at 5:47 pm

      Jamie –

      Thanks for your question. This is a pretty controversial topic, and there are lots of different practice styles. It depends a lot on whether or not a patient had a DVT during the pregnancy or just in the past, and what clotting disorder we are talking about. It also depends a lot on who you ask!

      Most people would recommend using some kind of thromboprophylaxis around the time of labor in patients who have a known thrombophilia or a history of a DVT in a prior pregnancy. If the patient only had a family history of thrombosis but no thrombosis herself, I think doctors would be split on that. The use of heparin in pregnancy is not risk free, being associated with a 1-2% chance of hemorrhagic complication with full dose anticoagulation. As such, we try not to use it without good reason. For me, I think it would make the most sense to check a patient like you describe for known thrombophilias. If positive, prophylaxis would clearly be indicated. If the workup were negative, I would probably offer it but maybe not push it as hard. Different docs may differ on this though.

      Like

  4. June 19, 2010 at 7:53 pm

    Hey people,

    I have been reading some web hosting reviews but i want to see if any of you have a good rec for a hosting provider.
    Price is obviously a concern as is uptime. I don’t need dedicated. Shared should work fine.

    Any suggestions?

    Thanks.

    Like

  5. September 21, 2010 at 11:25 pm

    Comfortabl y, the post is actually the freshest on this precious topic. I concur with your conclusions and also will certainly eagerly look forward to your future updates. Saying thanks definitely will not simply be enough, for the amazing lucidity in your writing. I definitely will immediately grab your rss feed to stay abreast of any updates. Fabulous work and also much success in your business endeavors!

    Like

  1. May 2, 2010 at 1:56 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: