[Discussion] can we stop arguing about copay until somebody posts a number
The title is the whole question — can we stop arguing about copay until somebody posts a number — but here is why I am asking.
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 conversation puts the prescribing clinician in front of a reviewing clinician. It bypasses the correspondence cycle entirely and is often the fastest available route.
Employer-sponsored plans may be regulated differently from individually purchased ones, which changes both the appeal route and which regulator hears a complaint.
Not medical advice, obviously, and nothing here is approved for human use. One person with a spreadsheet.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Internal appeals are decided by the plan. External review is decided by an independent body and, where it applies, its determination is binding. They are separate mechanisms and the second is chronically underused.
Internal appeals are decided by the plan.
adaeze_cabrera is right that this is documentation rather than persuasion. It took me a year to accept that.
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.
[deleted]
Have you asked for the clinical policy bulletin by number?
Missed a deadline because I counted from when I opened the envelope. That mistake cost me an entire cycle.
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.
Why step therapy denials feel unfair and are nonetheless beatable.
The requirement is that documented trials of preferred alternatives exist. It is a record-keeping standard, not a clinical judgement about you, which is why arguing the clinical merits rarely moves it and producing dates and durations often does.
What to assemble: what was tried, at what dose, for how long, and what the documented outcome was. A one-page table with dates beats three pages of prose every time. Where a trial is contraindicated rather than simply unsuccessful, that needs to be stated explicitly by the prescriber in those terms.
None of this is legal or medical advice — it is what the threads here have found works.
the denial letter names the criterion, start there
Agreed on the plan-year point. Criteria that applied last year may simply not apply now.
Not convinced. That is a formulary exclusion rather than a prior authorisation denial, and the route to challenge it is different.
Cosigning on external review. It is a real mechanism, it is underused, and the deadlines are strict.
Which country and which plan year are we talking about?
Is this a prior authorisation denial or a formulary exclusion?
a template letter that quotes their own criteria back is the strongest one
This. Step therapy is a paperwork requirement and it is beaten with documentation, not persuasion.
Peer-to-peer took fifteen minutes and resolved something a written appeal had been sitting on for a month.