three years of denial threads, summarised so you do not have to read them
three years of denial threads, summarised so you do not have to read them. It is the sort of thing everyone half-believes and nobody writes down.
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.
Spent six weeks arguing in general terms and got nowhere. Two paragraphs quoting their own criteria turned it around in eleven days.
Kept a log with every date, name of department and reference number. When they claimed no record of a call, I had the reference.
That is everything I have. The rest is opinion and I have tried to keep it out.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Member and policy numbers redacted from the screenshot above. Everything else left as posted.
ask for the clinical policy bulletin by number
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.
the denial letter names the criterion, start there
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.
Is this a prior authorisation denial or a formulary exclusion?
Same view. The second-level appeal is where mine turned, after a first-level denial that looked final.
Careful — the deadline runs from the date on the letter. Waiting for a call back can cost you the appeal entirely.
I would not skip the peer-to-peer. It is often the fastest route and it costs a phone call.
That criterion is from the previous plan year. The current bulletin has different wording.
External review was the thing that finally worked. I did not know it existed until a thread on this board.
deadlines run from the letter date, not from when you opened it
Push back: your plan is an employer plan, which changes both the appeal path and who the regulator is.
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.
That advice is jurisdiction-specific and this board spans several. Say where you are.
- 1Same view. The second-level appeal is where mine turned, after a first-level…6 comments in this branch · started by u/marta_dziedzic