unpopular opinion: most of what gets said here about denial is guesswork
The title is the argument: unpopular opinion: most of what gets said here about denial is guesswork. Here is the rest of it.
New plan year, entirely new criteria, and the denial that had been immovable in the autumn simply did not apply in January.
Peer-to-peer took fifteen minutes and resolved something a written appeal had been sitting on for a month.
Missed a deadline because I counted from when I opened the envelope. That mistake cost me an entire cycle.
Would rather be corrected in public than confident in private.
best — the order this archive was captured in
A denial letter is required to state a reason and to reference the criterion applied. That reference is the handle: request the clinical policy document by its identifier and answer it point by point.
the denial letter names the criterion, start there
[removed by moderator]
Yes. Written, always, even when they tell you a phone call is sufficient.
This. Step therapy is a paperwork requirement and it is beaten with documentation, not persuasion.
A peer-to-peer conversation puts the prescribing clinician in front of a reviewing clinician. It bypasses the correspondence cycle entirely and is often the fastest available route.
External review, which is the most underused mechanism discussed on this board.
Internal appeals are decided by the plan. External review sends the determination to an independent body. Where it applies its decision binds the plan, and the deadlines to request it are short and strictly enforced.
The two things that trip people up: not knowing it exists, and exhausting the internal levels so slowly that the external window closes. Ask on the first denial what the external route is and what the deadline will be. Availability and rules vary by jurisdiction and plan type, so say where you are when you ask here.
Disagree with the tone strategy. Anger has never moved a determination; matching the criterion has.
Staff name removed. Departments and criteria can be named here; individuals cannot.
Disagree with the tone strategy.
Agreed — and request the bulletin by number. They have to give it to you.
Yes — quoting their own policy bulletin back at them is far more effective than arguing in general terms.
Asked for the policy bulletin by number and wrote the appeal against its criteria line by line. Approved on the second level after a flat first-level denial.
Step therapy requires documented trial of preferred alternatives. It is not an argument to be won on merits; it is a record to be produced, and the record is what the appeal must contain.
the second-level appeal is where things actually turn
the second-level appeal is where things actually turn
This is the whole method. Answer the criterion they named, not the decision in general.
Step therapy requires documented trial of preferred alternatives.
Disagreeing with this line: the deadline runs from the letter date and treating it otherwise is expensive.
Kept a log with every date, name of department and reference number. When they claimed no record of a call, I had the reference.
Documented eighteen months of what had been tried in a one-page table. That table was the appeal.
external review exists and almost nobody uses it
a peer-to-peer call is often faster than a written appeal
Correction: that is a formulary exclusion, not a prior authorisation denial. Different form, different route, different deadline.
the formulary is published, read it before you appeal
Push back: your plan is an employer plan, which changes both the appeal path and who the regulator is.
keep every date, every reference number, every name of a department
deadlines run from the letter date, not from when you opened it
deadlines run from the letter date, not from when you opened it
Adding the underused one — external review. Independent, binding where it applies, and hardly anybody gets that far.
Agreed on the plan-year point. Criteria that applied last year may simply not apply now.
a template letter that quotes their own criteria back is the strongest one
External review was the thing that finally worked. I did not know it existed until a thread on this board.
- 1Documented eighteen months of what had been tried in a one-page table. That…11 comments in this branch · started by u/osman_ferrari