someone explain prior authorization to me like I have not read a paper in years
someone explain prior authorization to me like I have not read a paper in years. I would rather ask a basic question now than get this wrong quietly for two months.
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.
I will update this if the picture changes rather than quietly leaving it up.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Appeal deadlines run from the date on the determination letter. They are strict, they are short, and a missed deadline usually forfeits that level entirely.
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 formulary is published, read it before you appeal
Added a jurisdiction tag — the answers differ completely between countries and plan types.
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.
Employer-sponsored plans may be regulated differently from individually purchased ones, which changes both the appeal route and which regulator hears a complaint.
ask for the clinical policy bulletin by number
Small fix — external review is independent of the plan. The second-level internal appeal is not.
Small fix — external review is independent of the plan.
Adding the underused one — external review. Independent, binding where it applies, and hardly anybody gets that far.
Push back: your plan is an employer plan, which changes both the appeal path and who the regulator is.
document what has been tried and for how long, that is the whole case
I would not skip the peer-to-peer. It is often the fastest route and it costs a phone call.
Which country and which plan year are we talking about?
Not convinced. That is a formulary exclusion rather than a prior authorisation denial, and the route to challenge it is different.
Is this a prior authorisation denial or a formulary exclusion?
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 diagnosis code on the claim is doing more work than anything you write
New plan year, entirely new criteria, and the denial that had been immovable in the autumn simply did not apply in January.
Is this a prior authorisation denial or a formulary exclusion?
ferran_batista is right that this is documentation rather than persuasion. It took me a year to accept that.
External review was the thing that finally worked. I did not know it existed until a thread on this board.
prior authorisation criteria change every plan year
keep every date, every reference number, every name of a department
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.
Peer-to-peer took fifteen minutes and resolved something a written appeal had been sitting on for a month.
Disagree with the tone strategy. Anger has never moved a determination; matching the criterion has.
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.
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.
Documented eighteen months of what had been tried in a one-page table. That table was the appeal.
- 1Internal appeals are decided by the plan. External review is decided by an…6 comments in this branch · started by u/nadia_trevino