Georgia § 33-20a-40 Determining medical necessity or whether a treatment is experimental

Georgia Statutes

§ 33-20a-40 — Determining medical necessity or whether a treatment is experimental

Georgia § 33-20a-40

Title33

This text of Georgia § 33-20a-40 (Determining medical necessity or whether a treatment is experimental) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

O.C.G.A. § 33-20a-40 (2026).

Text

(a)For the purposes of this article, in making a determination as to whether a treatment is medically necessary and appropriate, the expert reviewer shall use the definition provided in paragraph (7) of Code Section 33-20A-31 .

(b)For the purposes of this article, in making a determination as to whether a treatment is experimental, the expert reviewer shall determine:

(1)Whether such treatment has been approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration; or (2) Whether medical and scientific evidence demonstrates that the expected benefits of the proposed treatment would be greater than the benefits of any available standard treatment and that the adverse risks of the proposed treatment will not be substantially increased over those of standard treatments. For either determination, the

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

(a) For the purposes of this article, in making a determination as to whether a treatment is medically necessary and appropriate, the expert reviewer shall use the definition provided in paragraph (7) of Code Section 33-20A-31 . (b) For the purposes of this article, in making a determination as to whether a treatment is experimental, the expert reviewer shall determine: (1) Whether such treatment has been approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration; or (2) Whether medical and scientific evidence demonstrates that the expected benefits of the proposed treatment would be greater than the benefits of any available standard treatment and that the adverse risks of the proposed treatment will not be substantially increased over those of standard treatments. For either determination, the expert reviewer shall apply prudent professional practices and shall assure that at least two documents of medical and scientific evidence support the decision.