appeal — 22 things I got wrong before I got it right
The title is the argument: appeal — 22 things I got wrong before I got it right. Here is the rest of it. 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…
Left up. It carries dates, a criterion and an outcome, which is what makes these threads useful.
[removed by moderator]
I would not skip the peer-to-peer. It is often the fastest route and it costs a phone call.
I would not skip the peer-to-peer.
This is the whole method. Answer the criterion they named, not the decision in general.
I would not skip the peer-to-peer.
Disagreeing with this line: the deadline runs from the letter date and treating it otherwise is expensive.
ask for the clinical policy bulletin by number
Has a peer-to-peer been offered or requested?
a peer-to-peer call is often faster than a written appeal
Which country and which plan year are we talking about?
Missed a deadline because I counted from when I opened the envelope. That mistake cost me an entire cycle.
Documented eighteen months of what had been tried in a one-page table. That table was the appeal.