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 [Discussion] can we stop arguing about appeal until somebody posts a number — 45 comments in the full submission. View in context.
4.1k
c/insurancefights·submitted 1 year ago by u/canada_coverage

[Discussion] can we stop arguing about appeal until somebody posts a number

Discussionbranch of 7 comments

can we stop arguing about appeal until somebody posts a number — 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.…

Read the full submission and all 45 comments →

This branch

7 comments, started 1 year ago
u/runa_wikstrom29 points·1 year ago

employer plans and individual plans are different fights

replysharereportpermalink
u/whois_wanda19 points·1 year ago·edited

Is this a prior authorisation denial or a formulary exclusion?

replysharereportpermalink
u/kasper_cabrera28 points·1 year ago

External review was the thing that finally worked. I did not know it existed until a thread on this board.

replysharereportpermalink
u/canada_coverageOP21 points·1 year ago

prior authorisation criteria change every plan year

replysharereportpermalink
u/muscle_cramp_mo12 points·1 year ago·edited

prior authorisation criteria change every plan year

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

replysharereportpermalink
u/ines_krastev12 points·1 year ago·edited

prior authorisation criteria change every plan year

canada_coverage is right that this is documentation rather than persuasion. It took me a year to accept that.

replysharereportpermalink
u/neha_rahimi22 points·1 year ago

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

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.