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 why does nobody talk about formulary — 33 comments in the full submission. View in context.
3k
c/insurancefights·submitted 1 year ago by u/vito_beaulieu

why does nobody talk about formulary

Discussionbranch of 9 comments

why does nobody talk about formulary — that is what I am asking, and I have already read the wiki twice. 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…

Read the full submission and all 33 comments →

This branch

9 comments, started 1 year ago
u/runa_wikstrom113 points·1 year ago

Agreed. The denial letter tells you which criterion failed, and answering that specific criterion is the entire job.

replysharereportpermalink
u/vito_beaulieuOP63 points·1 year ago·edited

What has been documented as tried, and for how long?

replysharereportpermalink
u/line_petrov30 points·1 year ago

a peer-to-peer call is often faster than a written appeal

replysharereportpermalink
u/formulary_fighterMOD44 points·1 year ago·edited

Member and policy numbers redacted from the screenshot above. Everything else left as posted.

replysharereportpermalink
u/ahmed_abubakar16 points·1 year ago

Member and policy numbers redacted from the screenshot above.

Agreed — and request the bulletin by number. They have to give it to you.

replysharereportpermalink
u/vito_beaulieuOP6 points·1 year ago

Correction: that is a formulary exclusion, not a prior authorisation denial. Different form, different route, different deadline.

replysharereportpermalink
u/maren_ibarra29 points·1 year ago

Cosigning on external review. It is a real mechanism, it is underused, and the deadlines are strict.

replysharereportpermalink
u/vito_beaulieuOP86 points·1 year ago

That criterion is from the previous plan year. The current bulletin has different wording.

replysharereportpermalink
u/camila_vasquez57 points·1 year ago

Yes — quoting their own policy bulletin back at them is far more effective than arguing in general terms.

replysharereportpermalink

← 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

Sigma-Aldrich Standards

Certified reference materials for peptide identity and purity work.

sigmaaldrich.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.