[Discussion] we are measuring denial at the wrong time and calling it noise
Long-ish post, sorry. tl;dr at the bottom.
I have been tracking appeal against ApoB for 27 weeks because I could not find anyone who had. The correlation is weaker than I expected, which is itself mildly interesting given how confidently people link the two in here.
Caveats up front: one person, one lab, one assay, no control, and I changed my training in the middle of it, which was stupid.
tl;dr: probably real, definitely smaller than the threads imply, and not worth reorganising your week around.
best — the order this archive was captured in
copay is separate from coverage
Strongly agree. Step therapy is predictable if you have the criteria.
do not suggest misrepresenting a diagnosis, that is fraud
do not suggest misrepresenting a diagnosis, that is fraud
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 89 weeks to accept.
do not suggest misrepresenting a diagnosis, that is fraud
prior auth criteria are state-specific, formulary differs
appeal letter templates are in the wiki
Slight fix: the number was 99.1, not 98.3. Decimal point, but a fairly consequential one.
redact member ids and group numbers from every screenshot
- 1reading this at 2am on my 36th week. thank you.7 comments in this branch · started by u/marisol_moreau
- 2prior auth criteria are state-specific, formulary differs4 comments in this branch · started by u/marta_vanhecke