GLPHubglpresearchhub.com
Read-only archive. GLP Research Hub is a static community record — nothing here is for sale, no account is needed, and no vote you cast is counted. Why?
Single comment threadYou are looking at one branch of [Discussion] we are measuring external review at the wrong time and calling it noise — 38 comments in the full submission. View in context.
716
c/insurancefights·submitted 2 years ago by u/sanne_novak

[Discussion] we are measuring external review at the wrong time and calling it noise

Discussionbranch of 10 comments

The title is the argument: we are measuring external review at the wrong time and calling it noise. Here is the rest of it. Prior authorisation criteria are republished each plan year. A criterion that blocked you in one year may not exist in the next, so a denial is worth retesting after the turnover. A peer-to-peer…

Read the full submission and all 38 comments →

This branch

10 comments, started 2 years ago
u/saskia_rahimi21 points·2 years ago

step therapy is a documentation problem, not an argument

replysharereportpermalink
u/whois_wanda5 points·2 years ago

Kept a log with every date, name of department and reference number. When they claimed no record of a call, I had the reference.

replysharereportpermalink
u/hedda_aguirre1 point·2 years ago

Which country and which plan year are we talking about?

replysharereportpermalink
u/prior_auth_painappeals-25 points·2 years ago

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.

replysharereportpermalink
load more comments (6) →

← back to the whole thread

About c/insurancefights

The paperwork war. Prior-authorisation criteria, denial reason codes, step-therapy documentation, external review, employer carve-outs, and the appeal letter templates the community has iterated on for three years. Mostly US-shaped but the tactics generalise.

46kmembers
95submissions
Dec 2023created
submissions / month, last year
Sponsored

PeptideMeter Analytics

Independent testing plus vendor-level trend data. Community-funded, unaffiliated.

peptidemeter.com
c/insurancefights rules
  1. Say which country and which plan type. "Insurance" means eleven different things.
  2. Redact member ids and group numbers from every screenshot.
  3. Do not suggest misrepresenting a diagnosis. That is fraud and it gets you banned.
  4. Independent community. Nobody here sells anything, and anyone who tries is banned.
  5. Not medical advice. Describe what you did; never prescribe to a stranger.
  6. Claims need evidence. Batch numbers, dated screenshots, independent test reports, or a citation.
  7. No referral links, discount codes or affiliate URLs. Permanent ban, no appeal.
  8. No contact handles, wallet addresses or tracking numbers — they identify people.
  9. Be recognisably decent. Disagree hard, insult nobody.
Moderators
Volunteers. Unpaid, unaffiliated, and reachable through modmail only.
Before you read on

Several compounds discussed on GLP Research Hub are sold for research use only and are not approved for human use anywhere. Nothing here is medical advice and none of it is written by your clinician. If a post reads like an instruction, treat it as a description of what one stranger did.