Toolkit final

PARITY TOOLKIT FOR
ADDICTION & MENTAL HEALTH
CONSUMERS, PROVIDERS &
SIMPLFYING THE APPEALS PROCESS:
STRATEGIES FOR WINNING DISPUTES WITH
YOUR HEALTH PLAN ADVOCATES

SIMPLIFYING THE APPEALS PROCESS: STRATEGIES FOR
WINNING DISPUTES WITH YOUR HEALTH PLAN

PARITY
IMPLEMENTATION
COALITION

September 2010
First Edition

TOOLKIT TABLE OF CONTENTS

1) Introduction ……….……….…………pg. 4

2) How to Use This Toolkit ….………….……………pg. 5

3) Overview of Mental Health Parity And Addiction Equity ………………..…………pg. 6
Law

Background on Parity …………………..………pg. 6

Brief Summary of the Parity Law ………………..…………pg. 6

Brief Summary of the Regulatory Process …………………..………pg. 7

4) The Appeals Process ….…………….…………pg. 9

Overview …………………..………pg. 9

Critical information for Filing an Appeal …….………………..…pg. 10

Checklist for Your Health Plan Coverage …………..….…………pg. 12

Internal Review …………………………pg. 17

External Review …………………………pg. 17

Checklist for Keeping Track of Your Appeal …………………………pg. 22

Tips for Successful Appeals …………………………pg. 22

When Should you File an Appeal? ..………………….……pg. 23

What Do you Need from the Plan to File an Appeal? …………………………pg. 23

Sample Provider Request for Medical Necessity Determination …………………………pg. 24
Criteria

Sample Patient Request for Medical Necessity Determination …………………………pg. 25
Criteria

Sample Patient Request of Documentation of the Specific Criteria ………………...………pg. 26
Applied “No More Restrictively Than”

Sample Provider Request of Documentation of the Specific …………………………pg. 27
Criteria Applied “No More Restrictively Than”

1

www.mentalhealthparitywatch.org

Steps to Take During an Appeal …………………………pg. 28

How Can the Federal or your State Government Help? …………………………pg. 29

5) Model Appeals Letters ……….…………………pg. 30

Using the templates …………………………pg. 30

Guidance for Individuals/Providers using these templates. …………………………pg. 31

Model Templates for:

…………………………pg. 32
• Exclusion or refusal to cover addiction or mental health
services or levels of care
…………………………pg. 37
• Prior authorization requirement for outpatient mental
health/addiction services in order to initiate in or out-of-
network care
…………………………pg. 40
• Denial of case management services such as phone-based
care management or disease monitoring technology
…………………………pg. 43
• If a plan will only reimburse for injectable medications if a
patient fails first at oral medications
…………………………pg. 46
• If a plan refuses to allow a psychiatrist or addiction medicine
physician bill for evaluation and management (E&M) services
for mental health/addiction under established E&M CPT codes
while permitting other physicians to use these codes for
medical/surgical disorders
…………………………pg. 49
• If a plan has concurrent review requirements

6) Conclusion …………………………pg. 52

7) Terms to Know …………………………pg. 53

8) Helpful Links …………………………pg. 56

2


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Parity Implementation Coalition gratefully acknowledges the work of:

American Cancer Society, “Health Insurance and Financial Assistance for the Cancer
Patient”

Consumers Union/Kaiser Family Foundation, “Consumer Guide to Handling Disputes
with Your Employer or Private Health Plan”

Mental Health America, “Dealing with Denied Claims”

Patient Advocate Foundation, “Your Guide to the Appeals Process”

Watershed Addiction Treatment Centers’ patient advocacy materials

and

Dr. Henry Harbin, Irvin “Sam” Muszynksi, JD and Samantha Hawkins for their
tireless commitment, guidance and review of the project

DEDICATION

This toolkit is dedicated to the millions of individuals, families and providers
who work tirelessly at fighting addiction and mental illness and ensuring
equal rights under the law.

3


1. INTRODUCTION

The Parity Implementation Coalition provides this toolkit as an aid for individuals in and
seeking recovery from addiction and mental illness and their families, providers and
advocates to help them understand their new rights and benefits under the parity law. The
toolkit is designed to be a resource in how to better communicate with plans, how to ably
prepare and document information should disputes arise with a health plan over coverage or
reimbursement and better understand your basic appeals rights and procedures. Clearly,
every plan has its own appeals policies and procedures and each plan participant must
become informed about his or her own plan’s appeals process.

As health care costs have increased, public and private health plans have imposed stricter
cost containment techniques on health benefits. Many plans have subjected addiction and
mental health benefits, often called “behavioral health” benefits, to an even stricter form of
cost containment, often in the form of higher co-pays and deductibles, shorter day and visit
limits, pre-approval or “prior-authorization” for these services and other forms of “medically
managing” these benefits that are more stringent than how other medical benefits are
managed. Common types of discriminatory medical management for mental
health/addiction benefits may include, but are not limited to:

• Prior authorization (pre-approval)
• Utilization review (the plan must authorize how the care is being delivered in
advance)
• “Fail first” policies (having to fail at one drug or treatment before another is
approved)
• Denials or exclusions of coverage for particular treatments or levels of care
• Medical necessity criteria (denials of care because a service or treatment is not
“medically necessary” to treat an individual’s medical condition)

When cost containment is used by plans to achieve quality and accountability, its impact
can be beneficial to patients, providers and payers in the health system. When it is used
simply as a means to delay or deny medically appropriate care, it can have devastating
consequences on individuals, families and the health system at large.

It is important to note that the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) was
not intended to eliminate cost containment or medical management. The law’s aim is to
create equality between medical benefits and addiction/mental health benefits.

-------

The Parity Implementation Coalition includes the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, American Psychiatric Association, American Society of Addiction Medicine, Betty
Ford Center, Faces and Voices of Recovery, Hazelden, Mental Health America, National
Alliance on Mental Illness, National Association of Psychiatric Health Systems, National
Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare and The Watershed Addiction Treatment
Programs. The organizations advanced parity legislation for over twelve years in an effort
to end discrimination against individuals and families who seek services for mental health
and substance use disorders and remain committed to its effective implementation.
4


2. HOW TO USE THIS TOOLKIT

Model Appeals
The templates in Section 5 provided in the toolkit MUST be customized. Individuals and
families, their advocates and providers must carefully review each template, its introduction
and make the best use of the templates given your own unique set of interactions you have
had with your plan.

Every place in the “templates” or model appeal letters containing a [ ] must be filled in by
an individual, advocate or provider filing the appeal. Each template contains the legal
justification from a nationally recognized law firm, Patton Boggs, to provide the legal
support for the argument included in the template. We
encourage you to use this legal justification to increase HELPFUL TIP
the chances for a successful appeal, along with any
We want to hear from you and help
additional information you can include tailored to your
specific case such as clinical guidelines. you if we can.

Helpful Tips for Consumers, Families and If you do file an appeal, we would
Providers appreciate receiving a copy of it at
The authors of this toolkit provide individuals and mentalhealthparitywatch@gmail.com
families with a series of “Helpful Tips” that are
included throughout the toolkit. These tips are based
on our own hard-won experience in fighting our own appeals of denied coverage and
reimbursement of mental health/addiction claims. After several years and numerous
attempts, we were successful in winning our appeals and we urge you to use the toolkit’s
techniques for organization, documentation and perseverance that were critical to our
success.

COMMON ABBREVIATIONS Checklists for Providers
For providers, we have included helpful checklists
MH/SUD – mental health/substance that experienced provider legal advocates have
use disorders included based on their years of experience in
resolving disputes that have arisen with plans.
MHPAEA – The Paul Wellstone and Providers should pay particular attention to the
managed care appeals checklist on page 10.
Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity
and Addiction Equity Act; “parity;”
the new law; “the statute;” or
“Wellstone Domenici”

5


3. OVERVIEW OF THE MENTAL HEALTH PARITY AND ADDICTION EQUITY
LAW

Background on Parity
Most Americans with health insurance face greater barriers in accessing services for
mental illness and addiction than they face for accessing care for other medical
conditions. The majority of health plans impose higher out of pocket spending
requirements and more restrictive treatment limitations on addiction and mental health
benefits.

Today, with new technologies like MRIs and PET scans that allow scientists to look inside
the brain, the evidence that mental illness and addiction are brain diseases is more
compelling than ever before. Unfortunately, reimbursement policy has not kept up with
science.

HELPFUL TIP Since 1992, advocates like you have fought for health
care equality for those with addiction and/or mental
Webster’s Dictionary defines “parity” illness. A partial mental health parity law was passed in
as “the quality or state of being 1996 that was a significant step forward.
equal.” Compare your health plan’s
medical/surgical benefits to your The Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health
health plan’s “behavioral health” or Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) was passed in
addiction/mental health benefits. 2008 to correct discriminatory health care practices
Are they roughly equal? If not, your against those both with a mental illness and/or addiction.
plan may not be in compliance with Significantly, the law aims to curb both the financial and
the new parity law. non-financial or “non-quantitative” ways that plans limit
access to addiction and mental health care. Individuals
with mental illness and/or addiction, their families, professionals in the field and
employers worked together to pass the law.

In the end, turning a law into REAL lifesaving addiction and mental illness benefits
means we have to fight for our new rights and benefits. This is OUR responsibility.

Brief Summary of the Parity Law
The parity law was signed into law on October 3, 2008.

The law went into effect for plan years beginning on
“Substantially all” Example:
or after October 3, 2009.
If 70% of the inpatient, in-network
The law applies to self insured and large employer
medical/surgical benefits are subject
group plans, but not to individual or small group
to a 20% co-insurance
plans.
requirement….
The law does not mandate plans to provide mental …then…
health or addiction coverage, but when they are
provided, they must be provided “on par” with No inpatient, in-network mental
medical benefits covered under the plan. health/addiction benefits could be
subject to more than 20% co-
insurance requirement

6


Here are ways the law requires addiction/mental health and medical benefits to be no
more restrictive:

• Lifetime or annual dollar limits imposed on mental health/addiction benefits may NOT
be more restrictive than those imposed on medical/surgical benefits.

• Plans that provide Out-of-Network coverage under the medical/surgical benefit must
provide on par Out-of-Network coverage under the addiction/mental health benefit.

• Financial requirements (e.g., deductibles, co-payments, coinsurance, out-of-pocket
expenses) imposed on mental health/addiction benefits may NOT be more restrictive
than those imposed on medical/surgical benefits.

• Treatment limitations (e.g., frequency of treatment, number of visits, number of
days, or similar limits on scope or duration of treatment) imposed on
addiction/mental health benefits may NOT be more restrictive than those imposed on
medical/surgical benefits.

• There can be NO separate cost-sharing requirements or treatment limitations that
are applicable only to mental health/addiction benefits.

• Plans are prohibited from using “separate but equal Deductible Example:
deductibles.” In other words, mental
health/substance use disorder and medical/surgical If your annual deductible is $500,
benefits must add up together towards the same, you can meet that deductible by
combined deductible. paying $250 for medical/surgical
services and $250 for mental
• Criteria for medical necessity determinations and health/substance use disorder
the reason for any denial must be made available services.
to contracted providers or the plan participant or
beneficiary upon request. A plan CANNOT make you pay $500
towards a medical/surgical
• Where there is a state parity law or state mandate, deductible and $500 for a mental
the Federal Parity law serves as the floor and state health/substance use disorder
laws must be enhanced to reach the federal floor. deductible.

• State laws that require more than the federal law
are NOT preempted.

Brief Summary of the Regulatory Process
Regulations are the written rules by which agencies implement law.

Interim final regulations (IFR) implementing parity were issued February 2, 2010. The
regulations give specific instructions for implementing the parity law.

“Interim final regulations” have the effect of binding law when they are issued. Parity
regulators have said they will issue additional regulations, but we do not know when or if
they will definitely come out. Until additional regulations are released, plans must
comply with the existing regulations.

7


The regulations are effective for plan years beginning on or after July 1, 2010. Many
plans start their plan year in January so the full effect of parity will not begin to be
experienced in many markets until January 1, 2011.

6 classifications of benefits
The regulations define a 6 part classification scheme for benefits:

– Inpatient, in-network

– Inpatient, out-of-network

– Outpatient, in-network

– Outpatient, out-of-network

– Emergency care

– Prescription drugs

If a plan provides medical/surgical benefits in any or all of the above categories it
must provide mental health/addiction benefits in the same categories.

Exemptions
Small employers who employ 50 people or fewer are exempt from the law (the
new health care reform law expands parity to new small and individual plans with
fewer than 50 people).

Local and state government plans may apply for an exemption from the Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid Services. To see if your plan is exempt, go to:
http://www.cms.gov/selffundednonfedgovplans/

MHPAEA does not apply to Medicare plans.

MHPAEA does not apply to Federal Employees Health Benefits Plans (FEHBP) and
TriCare/DOD plans.

Cost exemption
Plans whose costs increase more than 2% in the first year and 1% in the
following year may file for an exemption.
Plans that drop coverage because the plan meets cost exemption criteria must
inform plan participants of a reduction in benefits.

8


HOW TO GET ANSWERS TO
INSURANCE-RELATED 4. THE APPEALS PROCESS
QUESTIONS
Questions about insurance Overview
coverage often come up when Challenging a coverage denial by a health plan is a legal
individuals are trying to access right guaranteed to all insured people. All plans— including
mental health/addiction care. Medicaid managed care, private individual and group
Here are some tips for answering insurance policies, and employer sponsored health plans—
insurance-related questions: must provide a process to reconsider or appeal denial of
Speak with your insurer or coverage by a health plan.
managed care provider’s
customer service department. Individuals with addiction and mental illness who are
insured also have these rights to appeal denials of claims.
As for the person’s name each
MHPAEA also guarantees new rights to individuals with
and every time you call.
mental health and substance use disorders and their
Make a note of the person’s providers that will make coverage rules more transparent
name and the date and time and improve the appeals process. These new rights are:
of the call.
Ask your provider for help. 1. Plans are required to provide the medical necessity
Talk with the consumer criteria (see “Terms to Know”) upon request to
advocacy office of the plan participants and providers
government agency that 2. Plans are required to provide a reason for the denial
oversees your plan (ask for of any claim to the insured and providers
and write down the names of
who you speak to). See For people with addiction and mental illness, denials seem
Section 8 in this toolkit for to be most common for:
helpful links.
Learn about the laws • Residential care for adolescents and adults;
regarding insurance that
• Partial hospitalization and intensive outpatient care
protect the public. See
for addiction;
Section 8 in this toolkit for
helpful links. • Any care that exceeds the period necessary for,
among other things, “short term; evaluation,
diagnosis or crisis stabilization;”
• Care that exceeds 20 visits to an office based clinician;
• Tests, services or drugs that are not deemed “medically necessary;” or
• Failure to secure preauthorization as required for every visit by a patient’s
psychiatrist, psychologist or social worker.

HELPFUL TIP

More than 50% of appeals of denials of coverage or reimbursement by health
insurers are successful in favor of the covered individual. Just because this process
can be long and complicated does NOT mean it should not be done. Individuals should
keep all of the plan’s coverage information and correspondence in a notebook to
help ease the process and organize your appeals materials. Individuals often do
not win at the first level of appeal. Success is more likely with ongoing and politely
persistent appeals.

9


MANAGED CARE APPEALS
CHECKLIST CRITICAL INFORMATION FOR FILING AN
APPEAL
• Identify the type of
insurance policy (fully
As a patient, provider or advocate, there are certain steps
insured, self-insured)
you MUST take to ensure the greatest likelihood of
• Understand the terms of the successfully appealing a claim.
policy (and what it does and
does not cover) BEFORE DOING ANYTHING ELSE, MAKE SURE YOU:

• Obtain the medical necessity Know what type of insurance plan you have
criteria for both the mental It is critical you know what type of insurance plan you
health/addiction and medical have.
benefit so you can compare
INDIVIDUAL COVERAGE
how coverage decisions are
made Individual plans are purchased by the individual
themselves, rather than by an employer. Today,
• Obtain the reason for the individual plans are exempt from the new parity law
denial of care requirements. In 2014, under the new health care
reform law, newly issued individual plans will have to
• Obtain documentation from comply with both parity and the health care reform law,
the plan that the criteria was which MANDATES that plans provide mental
applied no more restrictively health/addiction coverage.
EMPLOYER SPONSORED COVERAGE
Most people have employer sponsored insurance. An employer sponsored plan is
one that you and your family enroll in at work. Your employer generally contributes
a portion of the cost of the coverage.
When it comes to how you appeal your plan’s coverage reimbursement decisions,
you must know whether your plan is “insured” or “self-funded” or “self-insured.”
These last two terms are interchangeable.
Insured plans:
What they are: An employer plan is insured if your employer purchases
health coverage from any insuring organization such as a commercial insurer
like Blue Cross Blue Shield or Kaiser Permanente.
Who regulates them: Insurers of such plans
are regulated by state insurance HELPFUL TIP
commissioners. (See Section 8 for links to
each state’s appeals process.) Self-funded group health plans
provided by state and local
Self-Insured Plans/Self-Funded Plans governments, churches and
some school districts are
What they are: An employer plan is “self-
regulated by the U.S.
funded” if the employer pays for the health
Department of Health and
care costs of its employees directly rather
Human Services and may be
than purchasing insurance from a commercial
exempt from the parity law.
insurer. Often, large self-funded employers
Click here for a list of exempt
contract with insurance companies like
plans.
Aetna or Cigna to simply process the claims or
to serve as a “third party administrator” for
your employer’s health plan.
10


To find out whether your plan is self-funded or insured, ask the person who
handles the benefits where you work. You can also look in your Plan
Summary Description that you received from your employer when you
enrolled. However, since it can be confusing, it is best to ask.
Who regulates them: The federal Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits
Security Administration (EBSA) regulates these plans under the terms of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). There are special rules
governing ERISA plans. For the purpose of this toolkit, the most important
rule is that self-insured ERISA plans are NOT subject to state laws, but they
are subject to the new parity law.

Managed behavioral health organizations (MBHO)
What they are: Often, your plan’s mental health and addiction benefits are
managed by a “managed behavioral health organization (MBHO).
Approximately two-thirds of Americans with health insurance are enrolled in
some type of MBHO.
Employers and state Medicaid plans can chose to “carve out” mental health
and addiction services from the rest of the medical benefits and contract
directly with the MBHO for behavioral healthcare services. On the other hand,
plans can purchase addiction and mental health coverage along with the
general medical benefits from the managed care organization such as United,
Aetna, Cigna or Blue Cross Blue Shield.

MEDICAID MANAGED CARE PLANS
What they are: Medicaid managed care plans deliver Medicaid benefits
through an agreement between a state Medicaid agency and a managed care
organization. If covered under a Medicaid managed care organization, you
are guaranteed certain grievance and fair hearing rights under federal law.
See helpful links in Section 8.

HELPFUL TIP

Keep a log of every telephone call you make with the plan. Be sure to record the date and the name of
the person you spoke to and take notes about the conversation.

Ask what will happen next and when it will happen. If the plan representative says they will have to
find out the information and get back to you, ask when you can reasonably expect a reply and put a
reminder on your calendar. Set a reminder on your computer if you use one.

If you don’t hear from the plan, it’s time for another call!

11


CHECKLIST FOR MY HEALTH PLAN COVERAGE

My health plan coverage is through:

[] My employer – Check if:

[ ] my plan is an insured plan; any plan denials are eligible for state external review

[ ] my plan is a self-funded plan; any denials are NOT eligible for state external review

[ ] my employer employs more than 50 people

[] A policy I bought myself

[] An association-sponsored policy (such as a trade or educational organization)

[] Other

My health plan:

[] Covers mental health and addiction benefits

[] Manages mental health and addiction benefits directly

[] Contracts with an outside entity (e.g. MHBO) to manage them

Plan phone number to call if I have a problem: _____________________________________

My primary care physician is: ___________________________________________________

My physician’s phone number: _________________________________________________

My mental health/addiction provider’s phone number: ______________________________

I need prior authorization for: _________________________________________________

[ ] I do not need a referral from my primary care physician

--OR—

[ ] I need a referral from my primary care physician for:

[ ] Lab and x-ray tests

[ ] Other specialist visits

[ ] Other: ____________________________________________________

My primary care physician can refer me to specialists who:

[ ] Are part of his or her group practice

[ ] Are on the health plan network list

[ ] Are outside of the health plan network only if there are no similar specialists within the
network 12
[ ] Are outside of the health plan network

I have reviewed the Exclusions and Limitations section in my Evidence of Coverage. My
health plan will not pay for or limits the following mental health/addiction services:

[ ] ________________________________________________________________________

[ ] ________________________________________________________________________

[ ] ________________________________________________________________________

[ ] ________________________________________________________________________

[ ] ________________________________________________________________________

Is my provider in my health plan network? _____________________________________

My plan will cover services at the following hospitals:

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

What should I do if I need care while I am outside of my plan’s service area?

For non-urgent care: _________________________________________________________

Phone: ____________________________________________________

In an urgent situation: ________________________________________________________

Phone: ____________________________________________________

In an emergency: ____________________________________________________________

Phone: ____________________________________________________

If you have a PPO or POS plan:

If I use in-network providers, I will pay:

[] $_____ annual deductible

[] ______ % coinsurance for charges that exceed the deductible

If I use out-of-network providers, I will pay:

[] $_____ annual deductible

[] ______ % coinsurance for charges that exceed the deductible

13


Understand the insurance policy and benefits
Knowing what your plan will and will not cover, prior to a procedure or doctors appointment,
allows you to make more informed decisions about your healthcare. Depending on your
plan and your benefit, this information will be outlined on the insurance company’s website
or is available from your HR department or in your summary plan description that is
included with your health policy. Ask your agent or your human resources person where to
find it if you cannot locate it.

Know when you need to obtain pre-authorization
It is your responsibility to know when you need to obtain pre-authorization for a procedure
or treatment, or specialist, and to make sure you and/or your provider receives approval.
You can also find this information in the benefit plan documentation or by calling your
insurance company’s customer service.
CRITICAL INFORMATION
What to do if a claim is denied
It is not unusual for some claims to be You may have to file your appeal within a
denied or for insurers to say they will not specified time period; it is vital that you do
cover a test, procedure or service that so.
doctors order. If this happens, it is
For example, depending on the health plan, it may
important to have a working relationship
require that it receive your appeal within 1 year of
with a customer service representative or
the date of treatment, or within 60 days of the
case manager with whom you can talk
date the plans tell you it’s not paying your claim,
about the situation. A first step should be
whichever comes first.
to re-submit the claim with a copy of the
denial letter. You may need the doctor to Federal ERISA regulations require that employer-
explain or justify what has been done or is sponsored health plans (both insured and self-
being requested. Sometimes the test or funded) must give you at least 180 days to file an
service will only need to be “coded” appeal.
differently. If questioning or challenging the
denial in these ways is not successful, then Know your plan’s timetable for all stages of an
you may need to: appeal.

Delay payment until the matter is If your dispute involves an urgent need for health
resolved care, make sure that you understand and follow
Re-submit the claim a third time and any special procedures and timelines that apply in
request a review such cases.
Ask to speak with a supervisor who You may be eligible for a response within 1 – 3
may have the authority to reverse a days if you have an urgent need. Know your
decision rights!
Request a written response outlining
the reason for the denial
Keep the originals of all letters
Keep a record of dates, names & conversations you had about the denial
Get help from a customer service from a state or federal agency (see Section 8 for
helpful links)
Do not back down when trying to resolve the matter
Formally appeal the denial in writing, explaining why you think the claim should be
paid.

14


How does the appeals process work?
HELPFUL TIP
In general, the appeals process is similar in all plans,
Make sure you have these except for Medicare prescription drug plans, which have
important items when speaking their own rules.
with an insurance representative:
Original Bill There are usually two, but sometimes three, levels of
appeals available to plan members depending on the
Explanation of Benefits
type of plan. An appeal MUST be denied at the first level
(EOB)
before a second level appeal can be sought.
Insurance Card (group
number) The first and second levels are often called “internal
Customer Service Phone appeals” because they are performed by the health plan.
Number These internal appeals MUST be exhausted before an
Reason for Denial letter if “external review” (see “Terms to Know”) may be
available requested.

If in the judgment of the clinician or provider a delay in
treatment poses a threat to the patient’s life, an expedited review should be requested and
should be provided in 2 – 3 days. Health plans may have expedited process to deal with
requests for medical services that your doctor feels are urgent. If your appeal involves an
urgent need for care, make that clear to the health plan so it can expedite your appeal.
Federal ERISA regulations require employer-sponsored health plans to respond to an urgent
care claim within 72 hours.

Response times vary from plan to plan depending on the type of dispute. The plan will
usually act more quickly if the service has not been provided, or if the patient is already in
the hospital. Some health plans say that they handle the first level of reviews within 1
business day for service not yet provided, but others may take longer. The federal ERISA
regulations applicable to employer-sponsored health plans set maximum response times for
different types of appeals: 30 days if the service is not yet been provided, or 60 days if it
has been provided. State law may establish response times for appeals to individual
purchased health plans.

If you do not agree with the result of the plan’s initial review, most plans allow you to
appeal the decision to a panel of individuals who were not involved in the initial decision. In
some cases, you will be asked to appear at a hearing to discuss your case; in others you will
not. Each health plan has its own rules about who will be members of the review panel. It
may include physicians, consumers or sometimes representatives of the health plan.
Federal ERISA regulations applicable to employer-sponsored health plans require that if the
appeal involves a medical judgment, the reviewers must consult with a qualified health care
professional.

If your plan is subject to state external review requirements, the plan will usually notify you
that it has denied your appeal and tell you how to file for an external appeal.

15


Arbitration
Your health plan may offer or, in some cases, HELPFUL TIP
require that you resolve your dispute through a
process called arbitration. Arbitration is a KEEPING GOOD RECORDS IS CRITICAL
process in which 2 parties present their views of
Helpful suggestions for record-keeping:
a dispute to a neutral 3rd party – an arbitrator –
who will then decide how to resolve the dispute. Decide who in the family will be the
Arbitration may be binding, in which the parties record-keeper or how the task will
agree ahead of time to abide by the arbitrator’s be shared
decision. Or, it may be non-binding, in which Get help from a friend or relative if
case the arbitrator’s decision is simply advisory. needed
Set up a file system in a cabinet,
Federal ERISA regulations provide that if an drawer, box or loose-leaf notebooks
employer-sponsored health plan uses arbitration
Review bills soon after receiving
as part of its internal review, the arbitration
them
must follow the same federal rules that apply to
any internal appeal, including one that says you Check all bills and explanations of
cannot be charged a fee for the arbitration. benefits to make sure they are
correct
If your employer-sponsored health plan requires Save and file all bills, payment
that you enter into mandatory arbitration, it receipts & canceled checks
must be one of the 2 allowed levels of internal Keep a daily log of events &
appeal, and you may challenge the arbitrator’s expenses
decision in court (in other words, the arbitrator’s
Maintain a list of addiction/mental
decision cannot be binding).
health care team members & all
other contact persons with their
Your employer-sponsored plan may offer you
phone & fax numbers. Keep filed in
voluntary arbitration (including binding
a notebook or file for easy access.
arbitration), but only if you have completed the
plan’s internal review and the plan has provided Keep records of the following:
you with enough information to enable you to Medical bills from all healthcare
make an informed decisions about whether or providers
not to use voluntary arbitration. If your health
Claims filed
plan has voluntary arbitration, your decision to
use this or not, does not affect your rights to Reimbursements (payments from
any other plan benefits such as payment for insurance companies) received and
other covered treatments. If you decide not to explanations of benefits
use voluntary arbitration, your health plan Dates, names & outcomes of
cannot use this against you in subsequent contacts with insurers and others
appeals. Non-reimbursed or outstanding
medical and related costs
Also, your state may have rules that regulate
Long-distance telephone calls related
how your plan can use arbitration. If your plan
to medical or other types of medical
requires that you agree to arbitration to settle
care
disputes over claims for benefits, you may want
to contact your state insurance commissioner to Admissions, clinical visits, lab work,
determine what your rights might be. diagnostic tests, procedures &
treatments
Drugs given and prescriptions filled

16


Internal Review: New federal rules as a result of health care reform law
If your plan is “new” (came into existence after March 23, 2010 or has made significant
changes to the plan’s costs or benefits) the below processes and procedures apply.

For new plan years beginning on or after September 23, 2010 (for the majority of plans, the
new plan year starts January 1), new regulations become effective as a result of the new
health care law (the Affordable Care Act) that standardize the internal appeals process used
by new plans that patients can use to appeal coverage or reimbursement decisions made by
their health plans.

The new rules do not apply to “grandfathered” health plans (plans in existence prior to
March 23, 2010). Additionally, plans can lose their grandfathered status if they make
significant changes to plan’s costs or benefits.

Under the new regulations, the internal appeals process for new plans must:
• Allow consumers to appeal when a health plan denies a claim for a covered service
or rescinds coverage;
• Give consumers detailed information about the grounds for the denial of claims or
coverage;
• Require plans to notify consumers about their right to appeal and instructs them on
how to begin the appeals process;
• Ensure a full and fair review of the denial; and
• Provide consumers with an expedited appeals process in urgent cases.

External Review
If you are not satisfied with your health plan’s decision after completing the plan’s internal
review process, you may be able to appeal the plan’s denial to your state’s external review
program.

External Review: New federal rules as a result of health care reform law
If your plan is “new” (came into existence after March 23, 2010 or has made significant
changes to the plan’s costs or benefits) the below processes and procedures apply.

By July 1, 2011, new federal regulations as part of the new health care reform law will
create one standard for how external review of denied claims would be provided by all plans
instead of the confusing patchwork of state procedures individuals face today. Click here to
keep informed of the new external review rights and remedies.

States are encouraged to make changes in their external appeals laws to adopt standards
established by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) before July 1,
2011. The NAIC standards call for:
• External review of plan decisions to deny coverage for care based on medical
necessity, appropriateness, health care setting, level of care, or effectiveness of a
covered benefit.
• Clear information for consumers about their right to both internal and external
appeals — both in the standard plan materials, and at the time the company denies
a claim.

17


• Expedited access to external review in some cases — including emergency
situations, or cases where their health plan did not follow the rules in the internal
appeal.
• Health plans must pay the cost of the external appeal under state law, and
States may not require consumers to pay more than a nominal fee.
• Review by an independent body assigned by the state. The state must also
ensure that the reviewers meet certain standards, keep written records, and are not
affected by conflicts of interest.
• Emergency processes for urgent claims, and a process for experimental or
investigational treatment.
• Final decisions must be binding so, if the consumer wins, the health plan is
expected to pay for the benefit that was previously denied.
If state laws do not meet these new standards, consumers in those states will be protected
by comparable Federal external appeals standards.

Additionally, individuals with non-grandfathered self-insured plans will be protected by new
Federal standards.

Under the new Federal standards, plans will have to:
1. Allow plan participants (claimants) to file a request for external review within 4
months after the date of receiving a notice of an adverse benefit determination or
final internal adverse benefit determination;
2. Complete, within 5 business days of receiving the request for external review, a
preliminary review of the request, to determine if:
a. the claimant is or was covered under the plan;
b. the denial was based on the claimant’s ineligibility under the terms of the
plan, thus making the claim not eligible for federal external review;
c. claimant exhausted internal process, if required; and
d. claimant provided all necessary information to process the review.
3. Then, within 1 business day after completion of the above, the plan must notify the
claimant in writing if the request is not eligible or if it is incomplete. If the claim is
complete but not eligible for external review, the written notice must include reasons
for its ineligibility and contact information for the Department of Labor’s Employee
Benefits Security Administration (including its toll-free number).
If the claim is incomplete, written notice must describe what information is needed
to complete the request, and also give the claimant the remainder of the four-month
filing period or the 48 hour period following the claimant’s receipt of the notice, to
correct the problem.
4. If the claim is eligible for external review, the plan must assign the request to an
independent review organization (IRO).
The IRO must notify the claimant of the request’s eligibility and acceptance for
external review and that the claimant can submit in writing, within 10 business days,
additional information which the IRO must consider during its review. The plan must
provide to the IRO within 5 business days after the IRO’s assignment the documents
and information considered in the plan’s denial of the claim.

18


If the plan does not provide documents and information, the IRO may terminate its
review and reverse the claim denial. If this happens, the IRO needs to notify the
claimant and the plan within 1 business day of its decision to reverse, then the plan
has to carry out the IRO’s decision.
The IRO reviews the claim de novo (brand new), and will not be bound by any
decisions or conclusions reached during the plan’s internal claims and appeals
process. It can consider additional information and documents to the extent available
and appropriate, beyond what was provided as part of any earlier review. This
includes materials outside of the plan’s claims file. The IRO must complete its review
and provide notice of the decision to the plan and the claimant within 45 days of its
receipt of the external review request.

New Expedited Federal External Review Process
Effective July of 2011, the regulations set out procedures for expedited review in the
following situations:

1. Following an adverse benefit determination involving a medical condition for which
the time frame for completion of an expedited internal appeal would seriously
jeopardize the life or health of the claimant or would jeopardize the claimant’s ability
to regain maximum.
2. An admission, availability of care, continued stay, or health care item or service for
which the claimant received emergency services but has not been discharged from a
facility.

If the plan gets one of these appeals, it must “immediately” conduct the preliminary review
previously described above, and then “immediately” provide a written notice to the claimant
detailing whether the claim is eligible for external review and, if not eligible, why not and
what materials are needed to complete the request. “Immediately” probably means within
24 hours, but the regulation does not specify.

If the appeal meets the criteria for an external review, the plan will assign it to an IRO
which has to, in turn, decide the external review request as expeditiously as the claimant’s
medical condition requires but in no event more than 72 hours after the IRO receives the
request for expedited review.

External Review: Grandfathered Plans Process and Procedures
If your plan is “grandfathered” (was in existence before March 23, 2010 and has not made
significant changes to the plan’s costs or benefits) the below processes and procedures that
are part of your state law today apply.

External Review: Who can appeal?
Most states have external review programs, but the details of these programs vary
considerably. External review programs differ from state-to-state in the types of disputes
that are eligible for appeal, the process used to resolve the appeal, and the time limits
imposed at each step of the process. This section describes the variations found in states’
external review programs. Click here for state by state processes

19


In most states, state external review requirements apply to all types of health plans. In a
few states, they apply only to managed care plans (such as HMOs, PPOs, or POS plans), or
just to HMOS.

You can use your state’s external review program if your health plan is an insured
employer-sponsored plan or a private plan that you have purchased on your own.
Remember, state external review laws do not apply to employer-sponsored health plans
that are self-funded, so if you are in a self-funded plan, you cannot use your state’s external
review procedure. At this time, your only recourse is to sue in court if your plan is
grandfathered. State external review programs also do not apply to Medicare and Medicaid
beneficiaries. If you are a Medicare beneficiary, you must follow the Medicare review
process described in your Medicare handbook. If you are a Medicaid beneficiary, you can
ask your state or local Medicaid office about their appeals procedure.

In most states, you can give someone else written authorization to appeal for you. In many
states, your provider may appeal on your behalf with your written authorization.

External Review: What types of problems can you appeal?
Most state insurance departments will review your request to be sure that it is eligible for
external review before sending it on to an external reviewer. Most states require that the
issue at stake involve “medical necessity.” That means that you and your doctor must
believe a particular procedure, treatment or prescription drug is essential for your health
and recovery. Your health plan, for a variety of reasons, may disagree. For example, your
plan may believe a particular treatment is ineffective for your condition, so it will not pay for
it.

You and your doctor may want a medical treatment, but your health plan will not cover the
cost because it considers the treatment experimental or investigational. Most states will
allow you to submit this type of dispute to external review.

Many states explicitly exclude disputes over coverage issues, such as whether you can use a
non-network provider because no qualified network provider is available or whether you
were actually enrolled in the health plan, although some states have a separate process for
reviewing these non-medical necessity denials.

Several states require that your dispute involve a minimum amount of money, usually from
$100 to $500. In other states, your right to appeal a claim is limited by the amount of
money involved.

External Review: When you can appeal
If you have a dispute over whether your health plan will pay for a particular treatment, you
may have to proceed with treatment before knowing if the plan will pay for it. In many
states, you will be able to submit your dispute for external review even if the services have
been provided; in others you may submit your case only if services have not been provided.

Most states require you to complete all the steps in your plan’s internal appeals procedure
before requesting external review. Some states specify time limits for the internal review,
and some allow you to file for external review if you have not received a response from your
plan within the required time. At least one state, New Mexico, allows you to file for external
review at the same time you appeal to the health plan if your case is an emergency.

20


If you have completed all the steps in the internal appeals process, and you have not won
your case, you should receive a note of “adverse determination” or “adverse decision” from
your health plan, along with instructions on how to file with the state for external review.
Usually you must file within a specified period, say 30 to 90 days, after receiving the
adverse determination in order to be eligible for external review.

If a delay in receiving services will cause you serious harm, most states have what is called
an “expedited review” which will give you a decision in a much shorter period, usually 24 to
72 hours.

External Review: How to appeal
Every state has a different procedure for handling external reviews. You will usually receive
instructions for filing an external appeal when your internal appeal is denied by your health
plan. In some states, you begin the external appeal by contacting your health plan again.
Others required that you contact your state’s department of insurance or other state agency
or initial your appeal.

The actual review may be performed by the state agency itself or through an independent
review organization hired by the state or selected by the plan. Usually you do not have to
pay for such reviews, though some states charge a nominal amount, usually $25 to $50.
Several states have provisions to waive these charges if you demonstrate that they would
cause financial hardship.

Although some states schedule a hearing and allow you to speak directly with the reviewer,
most do not. In many states, it is not clear whether you and your health plan must accept
the decision made by external review. In such cases, you may be able to appeal to the
court system if you are not satisfied with the result of your external review. You will likely
need to contact a lawyer to determine what, if any, rights you may have if you are not
satisfied with the result of an external review.

21


CHECKLIST FOR KEEPING TRACK OF YOUR APPEAL

Who to contact regarding a health plan appeal

Who to call: ________________________

Where to write: ________________________

________________________

________________________

How soon must I appeal? ________________________

How many days will it take to receive a response? (List
the response times for each level of review)

1st level ___________________

2nd level ___________________

Expedited review ___________________
(for medical emergencies)

Note: Federal ERISA regulations for employer-sponsored health
plans provide that a health plan cannot require more than 2
levels of appeals, and that if 2 levels are used, both must be
completed within the response time allowed by the regulations.

Tips for successful appeals

Appeals are only successful when they are:
• Presented according to the particular plan’s appeals process and timeframe. It is
important that you educate yourself about the particular plan’s appeals processes
• Factual
• Provide a clear purpose of the appeal letter at the beginning
• Brief

The most important element of an appeals letter is that it MUST be tailored to the
specific patient’s clinical need(s) as documented in the case/medical record and
provide a clinical justification in support of the recommended treatment, item or
service. Individuals filing an appeal should work with your clinician to help get this
information.

Because individuals and providers of services to those with addiction and mental illnesses
are guaranteed new benefits under MHPAEA, we also recommend that you include the legal
justification of why the service or treatment is permitted under the law. The sample letters
and legal rationale in this toolkit provide that justification.
22


When should you file an appeal?
When a denial of coverage has been made, patients and providers should consider the
following:
1. Is the patient’s care equal to care provided by the plan for other medical conditions?
2. Is the treatment, service or medically necessary item indicated for this patient at this
point in time?
3. Is a comparable treatment, service or medically necessary item provided by the plan
to covered individuals with other medical conditions?

4. Are the patient’s benefits subject to higher out-of-pocket spending than other
comparable medical conditions?
5. Are the patient’s co-insurance (see
“Terms to Know”) or copayment (see “Terms to Know”) amounts higher than 2/3
of the co-pay or co-insurance amounts applied to other medical conditions?
6. Are day and visit limits applied more restrictively to treatment services than to 2/3 of
other medical conditions?
7. Does the plan impose a higher annual or lifetime limit on mental health/addiction
services than it does on other medical conditions?
8. Is the patient’s care subject to stricter cost containment techniques?
9. Are essential treatments excluded or does the plan refuse to pay for entire levels of
care?
10. Does the plan require prior authorization for every office based visit?
11. Does the plan offer out-of-network coverage that is different than out-of-network
coverage availability for other medical conditions?

What do you need from the plan to file an appeal?
MHPAEA requires that plans use the same cost containment techniques or “non-quantitative
treatment limitations” (see “Terms to Know”) on behavioral health conditions as imposed
on other medical conditions. As a result, to better inform your appeal, you should request
from the plan the following:

1. A complete list of the medical/surgical conditions covered by the plan and the terms
under which they are covered

2. A copy of the plan’s medical necessity criteria for mental health/addiction services
and other medical services

3. Any clinical guidelines used by the plan to make benefit determinations for medical
and mental health/addiction conditions

23


Sample Facsimile Request for

Provider Request of Medical Necessity Determination Criteria

To: _______________________ From: _______________________

Mgd Care Co: _______________________ Provider: ______________________

Fax: _______________________ Fax: _______________________

Phone: _______________________ Phone: _______________________

Please disclose and/or make available the medical and behavioral health criteria used for your medical
necessity determination, (as required by the 2008 Mental Health Parity & Addiction Equity Act),
regarding:

Patient/Insured’s Name: ______________________________________________

Insurance Company: ______________________________________________

Insurance Policy ID#: ______________________________________________

Level(s) of care requested: ______________________________________________

IF THERE HAS BEEN A DENIAL OF AUTHORIZATION FOR TREATMENT, PLEASE PROVIDE THE SPECIFIC
REASONS FOR DENIAL.

Should you have any questions regarding this request, please contact me at the phone number listed
above.

24



Patient Request of Medical Necessity Determination Criteria

[Date]

Via Facsimile – [Fax No#]

[Insurance Company and/or Managed Behavioral Health Company]

[Member Services Dept. or other applicable dept.]

[Address, if needed]

Dear [Member Services or other applicable dept.]:

My name is [insured patient’s name] and I am insured under policy # [insert policy #] and group #
[insert group #]. My plan is governed by the Federal Mental Health and Addiction Parity law.

I am currently a patient at [insert name of provider] and I hereby request a copy of the medical necessity
criteria and specific reasons for denial that you are relying on in denying reimbursement for my treatment
services at the following level(s) of care:

[ ] detoxification

[ ] inpatient rehab

[ ] residential

[ ] partial hospitalization

[ ] intensive outpatient

I have paid for this benefit and [insert name of provider] is licensed by the state of [insert state] [and
accredited, if applicable] to provide these treatment services. My attending physician has admitted me to
this/these level(s) of care and is recommending my continued treatment. I am in dire need of these
treatment services and they are covered by my benefit plan and should be paid for.

I request that you immediately fax the medical necessity criteria and specific reasons for denial that you
rely on in reaching a different medical decision than my treating physician and refusing to cover my
treatment services. Please fax the medical necessity criteria and specific reasons for denial to
my attention at fax # [insert #]. If you would like to speak with me, please contact [insert
name of applicable care provider contact].

Sincerely,

[Patient’s name]

25



Patient Request of Documentation of the Specific Criteria Applied “No More
Restrictively Than”

To: _______________________ From: _______________________


Fax: _______________________ Fax: _______________________

Phone: _______________________ Phone: _______________________

Please disclose specific criteria (processes, strategies, evidentiary standards or other factors) showing
that [insert plan name] used to deny coverage. Please document how this criteria was applied in a no
more restrictive manner to behavioral health benefits than to the medical benefits provider under the
plan.





above.

26



Provider Request of Documentation of the Specific Criteria Applied “No More
Restrictively Than”

To: _______________________ From: _______________________


Fax: _______________________ Fax: _______________________

Phone: _______________________ Phone: _______________________

Please disclose specific criteria (processes, strategies, evidentiary standards or other factors) showing
that [insert plan name] used to deny coverage. Please document how this criteria was applied in a no
more restrictive manner to behavioral health benefits than to the medical benefits provider under the
plan.





above.

27


STEPS TO TAKE DURING AN APPEAL

STEP #1--Ask your provider to help you:

If your provider recommends a course of treatment, s/he is ethically bound to appeal on your behalf.
Providers may be held legally liable for negligence if they do not appeal and you or someone else is hurt
as a result.

STEP #2--Make sure your provider requests a special, expedited appeal for emergencies:

Emergency care cannot be put off because of standard paperwork or decision making processes. Most
insurance companies provide this special appeals process, so use it when necessary.

STEP #3--Confirm with the insurance company that your services will be covered during the
appeal:

If this is not possible, ask what your financial obligations would be for these services if the appeal is
unsuccessful so that you may discuss other options with your provider(s), as necessary.

STEP #4--Request, or have your provider request, written notification of the reasons for denial:

Your insurance company should send both you and your provider a written explanation of the reasons care
is being denied. This notice should include a description of the information required for your treatment to
be approved. By providing this information in writing, it reduces the chances that there will be a
miscommunication between the insurance company and you and your provider. This is a new right under
the parity law. If you do not receive this within 30 days, complain to the entity regulating your health
plan.

STEP #5—Utilize the templates in this toolkit:

Section 5 of this toolkit contains sample letters for appealing the most commonly denied mental
health/substance use disorder claims and accompanying legal justifications.

Be sure to carbon copy your state insurance commissioner, Member of Congress and the Parity
Implementation Coalition on the appeal letter.

STEP #6--Make sure that you and your provider(s) meet all deadlines:

If your treatment is denied because either you or your provider missed a utilization review or appeals
deadline, that denial is rarely overturned, even if the company agrees that treatment is necessary.

STEP #7--If you are on Medicaid, you may request a "state fair hearing" at the same time you
file your appeal:

These processes vary by state. Contact your Medicaid office for details. See Section 8 for links to state
offices.

28


STEPS TO TAKE IF YOUR
APPEAL FAILS
How can the government or your state
government help? STEP #1--Appeal again --
and again!:
Insured Plans
If you have an insured plan and you have tried Most insurance companies offer
unsuccessfully to resolve a denied claim with your three to four levels of appeal,
company or agent, contact your state insurance and each appeal will involve
department. Very often, companies will resolve new people, increasing the
disputes after the agency intervenes on a consumer's chance that the insurance
behalf. If it becomes necessary to file a written company will agree with the
complaint with the state insurance department, be proposed care plan.
sure to include the following information to speed
processing of your inquiry: STEP #2--Request an
appeal review by an
• Include your name, address, and daytime external party:
phone number.
• State your case briefly, giving full explanation A review by somebody who is
of the problem and what type of insurance is not on the insurance
involved. Include the name of your insurance company’s staff will be more
company, policy number, and the name of the objective. There may or may
insurer or adjuster involved. not be a charge to you and/or
your provider for such a
• Supply any documentation you have to review.
support your case including phone notes.
• State what has been done to resolve your STEP #3--Enlist the help of
problem including whom you have talked to the ombudsman program or
and what you were told. your employer’s Human
Resources Department, if
• For future reference, keep a copy of your applicable:
letter to the state insurance commissioner.
Your state may have
See Section 8 for links to each state’s insurance established an ombudsman to
commissioner. assist you with Medicaid
problems, and/or your
If a decision is made that you have a legitimate employer’s Human Resources
complaint, your state insurance department will staff may be available to assist
investigate your complaint and keep you advised of you with benefit problems you
what has happened. If a company insists your encounter.
complaint or claim is not valid, the state insurance
department cannot require the company to make STEP #4—Send your appeal
payment unless a state insurance law has been to your State Insurance
violated. In some cases, legal action is the only way Commissioner & Member of
to resolve health insurance disputes. You may want Congress and ask them to
to consult a lawyer if your complaint cannot be intervene with your insurer
resolved and it involves a significant amount of
money.

29


5. MODEL APPEALS LETTERS
HELPFUL TIP
Expect to provide the following
This section includes a template or sample letter of information in your written appeal:
appeals to health plans for submission by the patient
or treating clinician. The 6 samples were selected Your name, address & telephone
based on input from the real claims submitted by number
Coalition members around the country. These Your insurance plan number or
templates represent the most commonly denied group code and member
claims of addiction and mental health services as of identification number or Social
July 2010. Security number
The 6 types of appeals letters are for: Your provider’s name and bill
Referrals to specialist services (if
• Exclusion or refusal to cover addiction or relevant)
mental health services or levels of care
Description of the service or
• Prior authorization requirement for procedure that you want to have
outpatient mental health/addiction services covered
in order to initiate in or out-of-network Information supporting why the
care service should be covered
• Denial of case management services such Explanation of benefits (EOB)
as phone-based care management or forms
disease monitoring technology References to the sections from
• If a plan will only reimburse for injectable the Evidence of Coverage or
medications if a patient fails first at oral Summary Plan Description that
medications apply to your situation
• If a plan refuses to allow a psychiatrist or Additional research on your
addiction medicine physician bill for medical condition or treatment,
evaluation and management (E&M) such as treatment guidelines,
services for mental health/addiction under information from medical journal
established E&M CPT codes while articles, or research that says
permitting other physicians to use these the treatment is more cost-
codes for medical/surgical disorders effective in the long-term
Documentation that the services
• If a plan has concurrent review are covered by the plan or are
requirements
required by state or federal law
Legal justification
Using the templates
Parity requires plans to equalize medical and addiction/mental health benefits. As a result,
when preparing to file an appeal, you will need to look at you health insurance’s plans
Summary Plan Description and compare the medical/mental health/addiction benefits to see
if the financial and non-financial treatment limitations on the addiction and mental health
benefits appear to be generally the same as the medical benefits.

These templates provide you with real examples of why plans have denied claims. We
include effective legal rationales to help appeal these denials. In some of the examples, you
may have to substitute one of the benefits listed in the sample appeal for a benefit that you
have been denied. We could not include every addiction and mental health benefit in these
sample appeals letters. Look for the sample letter that most closely resembles your specific

30


denied claim. Every place you see [ ] you must substitute your own text to personalize the
templates.

Guidance for individuals/providers/advocates using these templates
1. Customize the wording of the letter to address the exact phrase in the
coverage/claims process where you are seeking the service i.e. the pre-authorization
request (see “Terms to Know”), claim, coverage denial or other point in the claims
process
2. Include specific details on you or your patient’s medical condition but keep it brief
and try not to exceed 3 pages plus attachments
3. Make sure that you or your provider are not duplicating efforts. You usually have
only two or three opportunities to appeal and do not want to waste one of these
opportunities by not coordinating individual and provider appeals
4. You must customize the appeal letter. There are placeholders in the letters where
information specific to the appeal should be inserted
5. If you see a “note” on the template, the note must be deleted before customizing
and sending the appeal letter

31


Exclusion or Refusal to Cover Addiction or Mental Health Services or Levels
of Care

Overview
There are generally two common reasons why a plan refuses to cover a specific
addiction/mental health service or level of care and this template covers both of these
reasons:

1. The plans excludes coverage for that treatment, service or level of care altogether,
hence the word “exclusion;” or
2. The plan will refuse to pay for a specific mental health/addiction treatment, service
or level of care because the plan will claim there is no similar treatment, service or
level of care in their medical benefit.

HELPFUL TIP

When a plan excludes coverage of a treatment, service or level of care, it is very helpful if you
can include guidelines or a research study showing why that particular treatment, service or
level of care is recommended or effective in treating someone with your condition with your
appeals letter.

Ask your provider or advocate to help you find guidelines or a study if you have difficulty or go
to www.google.com and enter the treatment or service for which you seek coverage in the
search bar. www.guideline.gov is another good resource.

32


Note: This sample letter could serve as a template appeals letter for any of the following denied
claims:

1. Residential treatment for psychiatric or substance use disorders

2. Intermediate levels of care such as intensive outpatient treatment, psychological
rehabilitation, partial hospitalization and assertive community treatment

3. Office based diagnostic and treatment interventions for mental health and substance use
disorders such as psychological testing for diagnostics assessments, other standardized
tests like the PHQ.9 or other treatment services like psychotherapy

Sample model appeal letter for exclusion or refusal to cover addiction or mental
health services or level of care

[Insert Date]

[Insert Name]
[Insert Company Name/Plan]
[Insert Address]

Re: [Insert Patient’s Name, Patient’s Insurer, Patient’s ID Number and Patient’s Group Number]

Dear [Name of contact at health insurance plan]:

I am writing to appeal to [insurance plan name]’s decision to deny coverage for [state the name of the
specific treatment service denied]. It is my understanding based on your letter of denial dated [insert date
of denial] that this [treatment or service] has been denied because:

[Quote the specific reason given in the denial letter].

I have been a member of your plan since [date]. My [insert name of clinician] believes that the best care
for me at this time would be [state treatment or service here].

I have enclosed a letter from [name of clinician] explaining why [he/she] recommends [treatment or
service], [his/her] qualifications and the legal justification for why I am entitled to this service under the
Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity law (P.L. 110-343).

Should you require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at [phone number]. I look
forward to hearing from you in the near future.

Sincerely,
[Insert your name]

Cc: [insert patient’s name]
[insert State Insurance Commissioner’s Name]
[insert your Member of Congress’ name]

Enclosure: Patton Boggs Legal Analysis
[Clinical guidelines where appropriate]

33


Legal Opinion from Patton Boggs on Denial of Services Based on No Legal Requirement Under
Parity for Coverage For a Specific Service or Treatment

A plan refuses to reimburse for a type or level of care for a MH/SUD condition because they state
that there is no parity legal requirement to cover any treatment service (i.e. no requirement for
scope of service parity within a benefit classification or across benefit classifications). Examples
include:

1. Residential treatment for psychiatric disorders or substance use disorders;

2. Intermediate levels of care such as intensive outpatient treatment, psychosocial
rehabilitation, and assertive community treatment; and

3. Office-based diagnostic and treatment interventions for MH/SUD such as psychological
testing for diagnostic assessments, standardized tests like the PHQ 9, or other treatment
services like psychotherapy.

“The regulations and underlying Act require parity across classifications of benefits and within
classifications. This imposes a two-fold requirement on plans: MH/SUD benefits must be provided in all
classifications in which medical/surgical benefits are provided, and plans must provide a similar range of
benefits to those provided for medical/surgical benefits within each classification.

In regard to the issue of parity across classifications the Act is clear that limits on the scope and
duration of treatment must be applied no more restrictively in the MH/SUD benefit than in the
medical/surgical benefit. The statute defines treatment limitations as “limits on the frequency of
treatment, number of visits, days of coverage, or other similar limits on the scope or duration of
treatment.” [Emphasis added] The statute then prohibits limitations on the scope or duration of treatment
under the MH/SUD benefit that are more restrictive than those imposed under the medical/surgical
benefit. Thus, the plain language of the statute explicitly discusses scope of services and requires parity
in scope.

The regulations create six classifications for purposes of applying the parity requirements: (1)
inpatient, in-network; (2) inpatient, out-of-network; (3) outpatient, in-network; (4) outpatient, out-of-
network; (5) emergency care; and (6) prescription drugs. The regulations require that when a plan
“provides [MH/SUD] benefits in any classification of benefits” described in the rule, MH/SUD benefits
“must be provided in every classification in which medical/surgical benefits are provided.” This language
demonstrates that if a plan is going to offer one MH/SUD service in any classification, it must offer
MH/SUD services for each of the relevant classifications.

Similarly, the preamble and the text of the regulations state that “if a plan provides benefits for a
mental health condition or substance use disorder in one or more classifications but excludes benefits for
that condition or disorder in a classification in which it provides medical/surgical benefits, the exclusion of
benefits in that classification for a [MH/SUD] otherwise covered under the plan is a treatment limitation.”
This statement requires parity across classifications in the scope of services that are offered for a
particular condition. For example, a plan provides benefits for schizophrenia in the outpatient in-network
classification but excludes benefits for schizophrenia for the inpatient in-network classification, even
though it offers medical/surgical benefits in that classification. The regulations prohibit such a plan
design. The language of the regulations is a scope of services parity requirement because it precludes
34


the ability of a plan to limit MH/SUD treatment services to less than all of the six classifications, provided
medical/surgical benefits are offered for each classification.

The regulations’ standard governing non-quantitative treatment limitations (NQTLs) also
demonstrates that a range of services must be offered in the MH/SUD benefit if offered in the
medical/surgical benefit both across and within the six classifications. The regulations clearly state that
NQTLs cannot be applied more stringently or in a non-comparable manner to MH/SUD benefits than to
medical/surgical benefits. This limitation implicitly confers a scope of services in the MH/SUD benefit that
is at least similar to the scope of services offered in the medical/surgical benefit for each classification. If
a treatment limitation cannot be applied more stringently or in a non-comparable manner in one benefit
than in another, the scope of services offered in each benefit classification should be largely analogous.
Additionally, to remain consistent with the clear language of the Act, the regulations should also be read
to prohibit NQTLs that are more restrictive in MH/SUD than in medical/surgical. This requirement again
requires a similar scope of services by prohibiting more restrictive limitations on MH/SUD benefits.1

The regulations’ requirements for scope of services parity within classifications is well
demonstrated by an example. Imagine a plan that offers only one or two types of MH/SUD treatment
services or levels of care in each of the six required classes, while at the same time offering many types
of treatment services for medical/surgical within each classification. Although the regulations do not
require a plan to cover identical MH/SUD and medical surgical services within a classification, they do
require that the limitations in each MH/SUD classification be no more restrictive than the limits in the
corresponding medical/surgical classification. If limitations were being applied in a no more restrictive
manner in the situation above, it is unlikely that only one or two MH/SUD services would be covered while
many medical/surgical services are covered. Presumably, the plan has developed some reasoning for
excluding coverage of other MH/SUD services. If the reason the plan is offering such limited MH/SUD
services in a classification is that the plan is applying a treatment (coverage) limitation to MH/SUD
benefits that is more restrictive or not comparable than the treatment limitation applied in the
medical/surgical benefit, the plan has violated the requirements of the parity regulations.

To allow otherwise would mean that a plan could, for example, offer visits to a primary care
physician for a prescription of an anti-depressant medication as the only outpatient, in-network benefit for
the treatment of depression. In this example, no psychotherapy treatments are covered by mental health
specialists and no diagnostic tests like psychological testing are reimbursed, even though a full range of
treatments and diagnostic tests are reimbursed for substantially all medical illnesses. The NQTL and
other parity requirements would prohibit this benefit limitation.

Finally, the definitions of “mental health benefits” and “substance use disorder benefits” under the
Act also demonstrate a scope of service parity requirement within and across classifications. The statute
defines MH/SUD benefits as "benefits with respect to services for mental health conditions, as defined
under the terms of the plan and in accordance with applicable Federal and State law.2 Proponents of
limiting services may point to the statutory definition of MH/SUD benefits to argue that there is no scope
of service parity because a plan has the ability to define the services under the terms of the plan. The
statute defines MH/SUD benefits as “benefits with respect to services for mental health conditions, as
defined under the terms of the plan and in accordance with applicable Federal and State law.”
Proponents of limiting services might argue that plans maintain the flexibility to determine which services

1 More information on this argument can be found in the memo from Patton Boggs to the Parity

Implementation Coalition, dated March 26, 2010.
2 § 1185a(e)(4), (5).

35


to provide because the Act specifically allows them to be “defined under the terms of the plan.” However,
the statute is clear that this process of defining the terms of the plan must be “in accordance with Federal
and State law.” This means that the terms of the plan must be in harmony with the Act. This gives rise to
two implications for plans. First, a plan has the flexibility to offer or not offer a MH/SUD benefit. The Act
clearly states that its parity requirements apply only to a plan “that provides both medical and surgical
benefits and mental health or substance use disorder benefits.” [Emphasis added]. However, any plan
that offers both medical/surgical and MH/SUD benefits, must offer them “in accordance with Federal and
State law,” including the Act. Under this reading, a plan has flexibility as to what mental health conditions
and substance use disorders it covers. However, once it decides to cover the condition or disorder, it is
subject to the parity requirements governing services described in the statute and regulations
(predominant and substantially all, comparable and no more stringently, etc).”

36


Prior Authorization Requirement for Outpatient Mental Health/Addiction
Services in Order to Initiate In or Out-of-Network Care

Overview
Plans often use “prior authorization” or pre-approval techniques. Used improperly, prior
authorization techniques simply delay or limit your access to care. When used properly,
prior authorization techniques can be an effective quality control measure. Currently, most
plans are imposing prior authorization requirements prior to approving coverage for an
outpatient in or out-of-network mental health/addiction treatment or after a set number of
addiction/mental health outpatient visits. While there may be certain medical benefits
where prior authorization requirements are also imposed before or after a certain number of
visits (i.e. physical therapy) the new parity law requires that cost containment techniques or
“NQTLs” must be applied “no more stringently” on mental health and addiction benefits than
they are applied to medical benefits. If prior authorization requirements are applied to only
a few medical benefits and virtually all addiction/mental health benefits, then the plan has
failed the “no more stringently” standard of the NQTL provision in the law and would be
non-compliant.

Sample model letter for prior authorization requirement for outpatient mental
health/addiction services in order to initiate in or out-of-network care
[Insert Date]

[Insert Name]
[Insert Address]








Sincerely,
[Insert your name]

37




Legal Opinion from Patton Boggs on Prior Authorization Requirement for Outpatient MH/SUD
Services in Order to Initiate In or Out-of-Network Care

Plan has a prior authorization (PA) requirement for outpatient MH/SUD services provided by
MH/SUD practitioners in order to initiate treatment for in or out-of-network care. This PA
requirement may include a refusal to reimburse if the patient isn’t “registered” with the plan or
may also require the submission of a brief treatment plan (either telephonically, electronically or
submitted by mail) at the beginning of treatment or after a defined number of visits. There is no
similar PA requirement for primary care doctors or specialty physicians for any medical
conditions. Would this be a MHPAEA violation?

“A plan that implements a prior authorization (PA) requirement for outpatient MH/SUD services
provided by MH/SUD practitioners but does not implement a similar requirement for medical/surgical
treatment by primary care or specialty practitioners is in violation of the regulations’ comparable and no
more stringently standards and the underlying statute.

The treatment limitations section of the Act prohibits treatment limitations that are “more
restrictive” in the MH/SUD benefit than in the medical/surgical benefit. Additionally, the Act states that
health plans must ensure that “there are no separate treatment limitations that are applicable only with
respect to mental health or substance use disorder benefits.” Where a plan has a PA requirement for
outpatient MH/SUD services provided by MH/SUD practitioners but does not have any such requirement
for medical/surgical care, it has implemented a “more restrictive” treatment limitation and has created a
“separate” treatment limitation that applies “only with respect” to MH/SUD. Accordingly, it has acted
contrary to the treatment limitations requirements of the statute.

The regulations state clearly that any “processes, strategies, evidentiary standards, or other
factors” used in applying a NQTL to MHSUD benefits in a classification must be “comparable to” and be
applied “no more stringently” than the processes, evidentiary standards, or other factors used in applying
the limitation to medical/surgical benefits in a classification. This standard prohibits plans from instituting
a NQTL in MH/SUD while refusing to institute a “comparable” NQTL in the medical/surgical benefit.3 Here
the plan has no similar PA requirement in the medical/surgical benefit as in the MH/SUD benefit. Thus,
an NQTL is being applied in MH/SUD that does not exist in medical/surgical. This is inconsistent with the
regulations’ prohibition on NQTLs that are not “comparable.”

The regulations give an example of a similar situation. In the regulations’ example 1, a plan
requires concurrent review for inpatient, in-network MH/SUD benefits but does not require it for any
inpatient, in-network medical/surgical benefits. The plan conducts retrospective review for inpatient, in-

3 75 Fed. Reg. 5416
38


network medical/surgical benefits. The plan violates the regulations because the concurrent review
process is not comparable to the retrospective review process. In similar fashion, the plan in the scenario
above applies a PA restriction to MH/SUD benefits that is not “comparable” to any restriction on
medical/surgical benefits. Accordingly, the plan in such a situation violates the clear language of the
regulations.”

39


Denial of a Claim for Management Interventions Such as Phone-Based Case
Management and Disease Monitoring Technology

Overview
Under the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA), plans may not deny claims for
phone based case management, disease monitoring technology or other management interventions used
in behavioral health if the plan reimburses for these services for medical conditions. It is important for you
to familiarize yourself with what management interventions are covered under the plan’s medical benefits
and the guidelines or criteria used to justify their use.

Sample model letter for a denial of a claim for management interventions such as
phone-based case management and disease monitoring technology
[Insert Date]

[Insert Name]
[Insert Address]



specific management intervention denied]. It is my understanding based on your letter of denial dated
[insert date of denial] that this [management intervention] has been denied because:





Sincerely,
[Insert your name]


40


Legal Opinion from Patton Boggs on Denials of Claims for Medical Management Interventions

If a plan offers to reimburse a range of disease management interventions such as phone-based
case management , disease monitoring technology and tests for medical conditions but refuses to
reimburse for these same services for any or most chronic MH/SUD would this be a violation of
MHPAEA?

A plan that provides coverage for a range of medical/surgical disease management interventions,
while refusing to reimburse for such interventions for MH/SUD violates the statute and regulations if the
reason for the differing coverage is a MH/SUD treatment limitation that is more restrictive, not
comparable, or more stringent than that applied to medical/surgical benefits.

The parity statute prohibits a plan from applying treatment limitations to MH/SUD benefits that are
more restrictive than those applied to medical/surgical benefits. Treatment limitations are defined as
various items that limit the scope and duration of treatment under a plan. In the scenario above, the plan
has presumably developed some reasoning or policy for excluding coverage of MH/SUD disease
management interventions. If the reason the plan is offering such limited MH/SUD services is that the
plan is applying a treatment limitation to MH/SUD benefits that is more restrictive than the treatment
limitation applied in the medical/surgical benefit, the plan has violated the requirements of the parity
statute.

Such an exclusion may also violate the parity standards in the regulations. The regulations
define NQTLs as limitations that are not numeric but that “otherwise limit the scope or duration of benefits
for treatment under a plan.” Here, it appears that there is some non-numeric policy or standard that is
prohibiting coverage of MH/SUD disease management interventions. As such, these policies would fall
into the category of NQTLs and be governed by the NQTL parity standard.

The regulations subject all NQTLs to the comparable and no more stringently standard. The
comparable and no more stringently standard states that a plan may not impose a NQTL for MH/SUD
benefits unless the processes, strategies, evidentiary standards, or other factors used in applying the
NQTL are “comparable to, and are applied no more stringently than” those used in applying the NQTL to
medical/surgical benefits.4 Here, the plan may be in violation of both standards.

The regulations prohibit plans from instituting a NQTL in MH/SUD while refusing to institute a
“comparable” NQTL in the medical/surgical benefit. Here, if medical/surgical and MH/SUD NQTLs were
comparable, it seems unlikely that a wide range of medical/surgical disease management interventions
would be covered while no or very few MH/SUD are covered. If the NQTLs are not comparable in
MH/SUD and medical surgical, the plan has violated the regulations’ comparable standard.

The “no more stringently” standard focuses on the manner in which NQTLs are applied. The
regulations state that a plan may not impose a NQTL unless the processes, strategies, evidentiary
standards, or other factors are “applied” no more stringently in medical/surgical than in MH/SUD.5 Under
this rule, plans can have the same NQTL in both MH/SUD and medical/surgical and still violate the parity

4 75 Fed. Reg. 5436.
5 75 Fed. Reg. 5412.

41


requirements by applying these NQTLs differently.6 Here, for example, the plan may have the same
medical necessity standards but could be applying them more stringently to MH/SUD benefits to exclude
MH/SUD disease management interventions. If so, the plan has violated the no more stringently
standard.

6 The regulation states explicitly that the no more stringently standard was “included to ensure that any
processes, strategies, evidentiary standards, or other factors that are comparable on their face are applied in the same
manner to medical/surgical and to MH/SUD benefits.” Id.

42


If a Plan Will Only Reimburse for Injectable Medications if a Patient Fails
First at Oral Medications

Overview
Plans frequently deny claims for injectable medications until a patient “fails first” at oral medications, even
if the injectable is the only one in its class, if the patient has failed at an oral medication or if the injectable
medication provides a substantial improvement in a patient’s ability to adhere to a medication regimine.
“Fail first” requirements were specifically named in the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act’s
(MHPAEA) regulations as a “non-quantitative treatment limitation” that would have to be applied equally
to medical and behavioral health benefits in order to be legal.

Carefully review your health plan to see if fail first requirements are imposed on behavioral health
pharmacotherapies in a heavy handed manner as compared with drugs used to treat other medical
conditions. If so, an appeal of a denied claim may be in order.

Sample model letter if a plan will only reimburse for injectable medications if a
patient fails first at oral medications

[Insert Date]

[Insert Name]
[Insert Address]



specific pharmacotherapy denied]. It is my understanding based on your letter of denial dated [insert date
of denial] that this [pharmacotherapy] has been denied because:


I have been a member of your plan since [date]. My [insert name of prescribing clinician] believes that
the best care for me at this time would be [state pharmacotherapy here].



Sincerely,
[Insert your name]

43




Legal Opinion from Patton Boggs on Denials of Claims Because the Patient Did not “Fail First” At
an Oral Medication

Plans develop medical necessity criteria that require a patient to fail first on oral medications for
MH/SUD before reimbursing for MH/SUD injectables. However the plan frequently pays for
injectables on the medical side without requiring a failed trial of oral medications first. Would this
be a MHPAEA violation?

“A plan that requires fail first on oral medications prior to covering injectables for MH/SUD, but
does not require fail first on oral medications prior to covering injectables for medical/surgical conditions
has violated both the regulations and the statute.

MHPAEA is clear that MH/SUD treatment limitations must be “no more restrictive than the
predominant treatment limitations applied to substantially all” medical/surgical benefits covered by the
plan.7 This phrase contains three discrete tests: (1) is the limitation applied to substantially all
medical/surgical benefits; (2) is it the predominant treatment limitation; and (3) is it more restrictive in the
MH/SUD benefit than in the medical/surgical benefit? Importantly, the statute applies this standard to all
treatment limitations.8 Accordingly, the standard can be used here to judge the appropriateness of the
plan’s action. Here, the treatment limitation does not apply at all in the medical/surgical benefit and
therefore clearly fails to meet the “substantially all” and “predominant” tests above.

The regulations define two types of treatment limitations: QTLs and NQTLs. NQTLs are
limitations that are not numeric but that “otherwise limit the scope or duration of benefits for treatment
under a plan.” Because NQTLs are not expressed numerically, it is often challenging to identify when an
NQTL is “more restrictive.” Accordingly, the regulations create the comparable and no more stringently
standard to put the no more restrictive standard into practice.

The comparable and no more stringently standard states that a plan may not impose a NQTL for
MH/SUD benefits unless the processes, strategies, evidentiary standards, or other factors used in
applying the NQTL are “comparable to, and are applied no more stringently than” those used in applying
the NQTL to medical/surgical benefits.9 The regulations explicitly state that fail-first policies are a form of
NQTL. As such, these standards are subject to the regulations’ comparable and no more stringently
standards. The “comparable to” requirement is the decisive factor in determining plan compliance under
the scenario above.

7 Id.
8 29 U.S.C. 1185a(a)(3)(A)(ii).
9 75 Fed. Reg. 5436.

44


“comparable” NQTL in the medical/surgical benefit. Here the plan has a specific coverage limitation in
the MH/SUD benefit, but no such limitation in the medical/surgical benefit. Thus, an NQTL is being
applied in MH/SUD that does not exist in medical/surgical. This is inconsistent with the regulations’
prohibition on NQTLs that are not “comparable.”

The regulations give an example of a situation similar to the scenario above. In the regulations’
example 5, plan participants are able to access MH/SUD benefits only after exhausting counseling
sessions offered under an employee assistance program (EAP). The plan violates the regulations
because no similar exhaustion requirement applies with respect to medical/surgical benefits. In similar
fashion, the plan in the scenario above applies a restriction to MH/SUD benefits that does not apply to
any restriction on medical/surgical benefits. Accordingly, the plan in such a situation violates the clear
language of the regulations.

Applying a NQTL in MH/SUD while not applying a comparable NQTL in medical/surgical is
likewise consistent with the other parts of the underlying Act. The treatment limitations section of the Act
states that health plans must ensure that “there are no separate treatment limitations that are applicable
only with respect to mental health or substance use disorder benefits.” Where a plan imposes fail first
policies to MH/SUD injectables but does not apply similar criteria to medical/surgical injectables, it has
created a “separate” treatment limitation that applies “only with respect” to MH/SUD. Accordingly, it has
acted contrary to the treatment limitations requirements of the statute.

In addition, allowing a NQTL in MH/SUD while not imposing any similar limitation in
medical/surgical would be inconsistent with the purpose of the Act. The purpose of the Act, as stated by
each of the five Committees that considered the bill, was to ensure “parity” between MH/SUD benefits
and medical/surgical benefits. Parity is “the quality or state of being equal or equivalent.” It seems clear
that a plan with a NQTL for MH/SUD but not for medical/surgical is not “equal or equivalent.” In addition,
the legislation was enacted to remedy a specific problem, namely, “the discrimination that exists under
many group health plans with respect to mental health and substance-related disorder benefits.”
Interpreting the Act to allow the application of a NQTL in MH/SUD while not applying a more restrictive
NQTL in medical/surgical perpetuates the discrimination that Congress intended to eliminate.”

45


If a Plan Refuses to Allow A Psychiatrist or Addiction Medicine Physician
Bill for Evaluation and Management (E&M) Services for Mental
Health/Substance Use Disorders Under Established E&M CPT codes while
Permitting Other Physicians to Use these Codes for Medical/Surgical
Disorders

Overview
Currently, plans often refuse to allow psychiatrists or addiction physicians to bill for evaluation and
management (E&M) codes for mental health and substance use disorders under established CPT codes
while permitting other physicians to use these codes for medical/surgical disorders. This is a non-
quantitative treatment limitation under the parity law in the form of a discriminatory provider
reimbursement practice.

Sample model letter if a plan refuses to allow a psychiatrist or addiction medicine
physician to bill for evaluation and management services for mental
health/substance use disorders under established E&M CPT codes
[Insert Date]

[Insert Name]
[Insert Address]








Sincerely,
[Insert your name]

46




Legal Opinion from Patton Boggs on If a Plan Refuses to Allow A Psychiatrist or Addiction
Medicine Physician Bill for Evaluation and Management (E&M) Services for MH/SUD Conditions
Under Established E&M CPT codes while Permitting Other Physicians to Use these Codes for
Medical/Surgical Disorders

A plan refuses to allow a psychiatrist or addiction specialist physician to bill for evaluation and
management services for MH/SUD conditions under established E&M CPT physician codes while
permitting all other non psychiatric physicians to use these codes for medical/surgical disorders.

“A plan that prohibits the use of E&M codes for MH/SUD practitioners, while allowing the use of
these codes for medical/surgical professionals has implemented a non-comparable treatment limitation
that violates the regulations.

Under the parity regulations, the processes, strategies, evidentiary standards, or other factors
used in applying a NQTL to a MH/SUD benefit must be comparable and no more stringent than those
applied to a medical/surgical benefit. NQTLs are non-numeric plan policies that “limit the scope or
duration of benefits for treatment under a plan.”10 While the illustrative list of NQTL examples does not
specifically list coding limitations as an NQTL, it does list several other payment-related policies that
qualify as NQTLs. For example, one of these NQTLs is “standards for provider admission to participate in
a network, including reimbursement rates.”11 Another listed NQTL is “plan methods for determining usual,
customary, and reasonable charges.” Like these examples, coding is closely related to reimbursement.
As with these other payment-related examples, coding restrictions can be considered a NQTL.

E&M codes generally pay more than psychiatry CPT codes and many plans preclude
psychiatrists from using these codes to bill for services. Both of these factors may ultimately affect a
psychiatrist’s willingness or ability to participate in a provider network, which will, in turn, affect the scope
of services available to a beneficiary. Additionally, a plan’s decision to prohibit a psychiatrist or addiction
specialist physician from using E&M codes will restrict who can provide basic medical management
services to persons with MH/SUD. As discussed above, because of the potential effect on the “scope” of
services caused by limitations on the use of E&M codes by psychiatrists and addiction specialist
physicians, such restrictions likely qualify as an NQTL.

As an NQTL, coding policies are subject to the regulations’ “comparable” standard. The
comparable standard clearly prohibits plans from instituting a NQTL in MH/SUD while refusing to institute
a “comparable” NQTL in the medical/surgical benefit.12 Here, the plan prohibits the use of E&M codes for
MH/SUD practitioners, while allowing the use of these codes for medical/surgical professionals. On its

10 75 Fed. Reg. 5445.
11 75 Fed. Reg. 5443.
12 75 Fed. Reg. 5416

47


face, such a policy is not comparable. An NQTL is being applied in MH/SUD that does not exist in
medical/surgical. This is inconsistent with the regulations’ prohibition on NQTLs that are not comparable.”

48


Concurrent Review Requirements

Overview
Plans often impose concurrent review requirements, especially when a patient seeks residential or
inpatient addiction/mental health care. When implemented properly, concurrent review can be an
important quality control tool; improperly implemented it can harm quality patient care, drain clinical
resources and bring facility budgeting planning to a standstill. If and how concurrent review programs
are imposed on both medical and mental health/addiction benefits are important in establishing whether
or not an appeal should be filed.

Sample model letter for concurrent review requirements
[Insert Date]

[Insert Name]
[Insert Address]








Sincerely,
[Insert your name]



49


Legal Opinion from Patton Boggs Concurrent Review Requirements

A plan has concurrent review requirements for MH/SUD inpatient (in or out-of-network) care but
no such review is required for any medical/surgical inpatient. Is this a MHPAEA violation?

“A plan that has concurrent review requirements for MH/SUD care but no similar requirement for
medical/surgical care violates both the statute and the regulations.

MHPAEA is clear that MH/SUD treatment limitations must be “no more restrictive than the
predominant treatment limitations applied to substantially all” medical/surgical benefits covered by the
plan.13 This phrase contains three discrete tests: (1) is the limitation applied to substantially all
medical/surgical benefits; (2) is it the predominant treatment limitation; and (3) is it more restrictive in the
MH/SUD benefit than in the medical/surgical benefit?14 Importantly, the statute applies this standard to all
treatment limitations.15 Accordingly, the standard can be used here to judge the appropriateness of the
plan’s action. Here, the treatment limitation does not apply at all in the medical/surgical benefit and
therefore clearly fails to meet the “substantially all” and “predominant” tests above. Even if the
predominant and substantially all standards were met, the treatment limitation here is “more restrictive”
because it applies to MH/SUD benefits but not to medical surgical benefits.

The regulations define two types of treatment limitations: QTLs and NQTLs. NQTLs are
limitations that are not numeric but that “otherwise limit the scope or duration of benefits for treatment
under a plan.” Because NQTLs are not expressed numerically, it is often challenging to identify when an
NQTL is “more restrictive.” Accordingly, the regulations create the comparable and no more stringently
standard to put the no more restrictive standard into practice.

The comparable and no more stringently standard states that a plan may not impose a NQTL for
MH/SUD benefits unless the processes, strategies, evidentiary standards, or other factors used in
applying the NQTL are “comparable to, and are applied no more stringently than” those used in applying
the NQTL to medical/surgical benefits.16 The “comparable to” requirement is the decisive factor in
determining plan compliance under the scenario above.

“comparable” NQTL in the medical/surgical benefit. Here, the plan implements a concurrent review
process in the MH/SUD benefit, but does not utilize this process in the medical/surgical benefit. Thus, an
NQTL is being applied in MH/SUD that does not exist in medical/surgical. This is inconsistent with the
regulations’ prohibition on NQTLs that are not “comparable.”

The regulations give an example of a similar situation. In the regulations’ example 1, a plan
requires concurrent review for inpatient, in-network MH/SUD benefits but does not require it for any
inpatient, in-network medical/surgical benefits. The plan conducts retrospective review for inpatient, in-
network medical/surgical benefits. The plan violates the regulations because the concurrent review
process is not comparable to the retrospective review process. In similar fashion, the plan in the scenario

13Id.
14More information on this argument can be found in the memo from Patton Boggs to the Parity
Implementation Coalition, dated March 26, 2010.
15 29 U.S.C. 1185a(a)(3)(A)(ii).
16 75 Fed. Reg. 5436.

50


above applies a concurrent review process to MH/SUD benefits that is not “comparable” to any review
process on medical/surgical benefits. Accordingly, the plan in such a situation violates the clear language
of the regulations.

Applying a NQTL in MH/SUD while not applying a comparable NQTL in medical/surgical is
likewise consistent with the other parts of the underlying Act. The treatment limitations section of the Act
states that health plans must ensure that “there are no separate treatment limitations that are applicable
only with respect to mental health or substance use disorder benefits.” Here, the limitation is clearly only
applicable to the MH/SUD benefit and, accordingly, is inconsistent with the statute.”

51


6. CONCLUSION

It is our hope that these tips and checklists are helpful. The Paul Wellstone and Pete
Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act is a new law and it may take some
time before its full impact is realized in the marketplace. Be patient. Filing appeals is
complicated. It requires you to make contacts with plans, document these contacts, gather
information and write letters. Get a notebook, gather your documentation, remain
courteous and polite, write everything down and take it one step at a time; one day at a
time.

We want to hear from you and help you if we can. Copy us at
mentalhealthparitywatch@gmail.com on your appeals.

52


7. TERMS TO KNOW

Appealing a Claim: The process to fight a denied medical claim. Most insurance carriers
have their own process and timeline.
Balance Billing: The amount you could be responsible for (in addition to any co-payments,
deductibles or coinsurance) if you use an out-of-network provider and the fee for a
particular service exceeds the allowable charge for that service.
Carrier: The insurance company that issues your insurance policy.
Carve-Out: - An independent managed behavioral health organization who manages
mental health and addiction benefits separately from the plan’s medical benefits.
Claim: An overview of care provided and a request for payment, typically submitted by the
provider to the patient’s insurance company. Claims are reviewed by the insurance
company. This review process determines coverage of services and ultimate payment to
the provider.
Classification: One of the 6 categories of benefits required under MHPAEA (i.e in-network
inpatient or out-of-network outpatient)
Clinical Practice Guideline: A utilization and quality management tool designed to help
providers to make decisions about the most appropriate course of treatment for a particular
patient.
Co-payment: The dollar amount that an insured patient is expected to pay at the time of
service.
Deductible: A dollar amount an insured patient must pay before the insurer will make any
benefit payments.
Denied Medical Claim: Reject of a request for reimbursement of healthcare services
delivered to the insured patient. The insurance company often informs the patient of the
rejected claim and explains why the services are believed to be outside of the scope of
those covered in the insurance policy.
Effective Date: The date your insurance is to actually begin. You are not covered until the
policies’ effective date.
Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs): Mental health counseling services that are
sometimes offered by insurance companies or employers. Typically, individuals or
employers do not have to directly pay for services provided through an employee assistance
program.
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA): A broad-reaching law that
establishes the rights of health plan participants, requirements for the disclosure of health
plan provisions and funding, and standards for the investment of pension plan assets.
Exclusions: Specific conditions, services or treatments for which a health insurance plan
will not provide coverage.
Explanation of Benefits: A statement sent from the health insurance company to an
insured member listing services that were billed by a healthcare provider, how those
charges were processed, and the total amount of patient responsibility for the claim

53


External Review: External review is part of the health insurance claims denial process. It
typically occurs when an independent third party reviews your claim to determine whether
the insurer is obligated to pay. External review is one of several steps that comprise the
appeal and review process. It is performed after the appellant has exhausted the insurance
company's internal review process without success.
Financial Requirements: e.g., deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, out-of-pocket
maximums
Formulary: A listing of drugs, classified by therapeutic category or disease class, that are
considered preferred therapy for a given managed population and that are to be used by an
MCO's providers in prescribing medications.
Fully Insured plan: Employer-sponsored insurance purchased through an insurance
company. These plans are regulated by state insurance commissions.
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA): A federal law that
outlines the requirements that employer-sponsored group insurance plans, insurance
companies, and managed care organizations must satisfy in order to provide health
insurance coverage in the individual and group healthcare markets.
Independent External Review: An appeals review that is conducted by a third party that
is not affiliated with the health plan or a providers' association and has no conflict of interest
or stake in the outcome of the review. This is usually the third level of review. This is often
defined by state law. Also note, the new federal health care reform regulations address
external review:
http://www.healthcare.gov/law/provisions/appealing/appealinghealthplandecisions.html
Inpatient: A term used to describe a person admitted to a hospital for at least 24 hours. It
may also be used to describe the care rendered in a hospital when the duration of the stay
is at least 24 hours.
Managed Behavioral Health Organization (MBHO): An organization that provides
behavioral health services by implementing managed care techniques.

Medicaid: A joint federal and state program that provides hospital expense and medical
expense coverage to the low-income population and certain aged and disabled individuals.
Medically Necessary: Medical services that are essential or required for the diagnosis
and/or treatment of a medical condition.
Medicare: A federal government program established under Title XVIII of the Social
Security Act of 1965 to provide hospital expense and medical expense insurance to elderly
and disabled persons.
Network: The group of physicians, hospitals, and other medical care professionals that a
managed care plan has contracted with to deliver medical services to its members.
Non-Quantitative Treatment Limitation: Any non-financial treatment limitation imposed
by a health plan that limit the scope or duration of treatment (i.e. pre-authorization,
medical necessity, utilization review etc.)
Out-of-Plan/Out-of-Network: Physicians, hospitals, and other health care providers that
are not contracted with the plan or insurer to provide health care services at discounted
rates. Depending on an individual’s plan, expenses incurred by services provided by out-of
plan health care professionals may not be covered, or may be only partially covered.

54


Outpatient Care: Treatment that is provided to a patient who is able to return home after
care without an overnight stay in a hospital or other inpatient facility.
Partial Hospitalization Services: Also referred to as "partial hospital days," this is a
healthcare term used to refer to outpatient services performed in a hospital setting as an
alternative or follow-up to inpatient mental health or addiction treatment.
Pre-authorization: Confirmation of coverage by the insurance company for a service or
product before receiving the service or product from the medical provider. (Also known as
prior authorization)
Provider Payment: Amount of money paid to the healthcare provider by the insurance
company.
Quantitative Treatment Limitation: Financial requirements such as co-payments, co-
insurance, deductibles that must be paid by plan participants.
Reasonable and Customary Fees/Usual and Customary Fees: The average fee
charged by a particular type of health care practitioner within a geographic area. These fees
are often used by insurers to determine the amount of coverage for health care provided by
out-of-network providers. The individual may be responsible for any copayment,
coinsurance and deductible, as well as any remaining portion of the provider’s fee that is not
covered by the Reasonable and Customary Fee.

Reason Codes: A letter or number system typically presented and defined at the bottom of
an Explanation of Benefits (EOB), used to explain how the insurance claim was processed.
These codes are very important in understanding why the insurance company denied all or
part of your claim.
Self-insured plan (ERISA): A plan offered by employers who directly assume the major
cost of health insurance for their employees. Self-insured employee health benefit plans are
exempt from many state laws and instead are subject to federal (ERISA) law.
Summary plan description or document: A description of the benefits includes in your
health plan.
Treatment Limitations: Limits based on frequency of treatment, number of visits, days of
coverage, days in a waiting period.

Note: This list of terms it not intended to be exhaustive. These terms are useful in
understanding the parity law and navigating the appeals process.

55


8. HELPFUL LINKS

STATE RESOURCES

External Review Process by State from the Kaiser Family Foundation:
http://statehealthfacts.org/comparetable.jsp?ind=361&cat=7
State Laws Mandating or Regulating Mental Health/Addiction Benefits:
http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/Health/StateLawsMandatingorRegulatingMentalHealthB
/tabid/14352/Default.aspx

State insurance commissioners oversee insured plans. For assistance or to file a complaint,
please click on the link for your state’s office. (See federal resources below for assistance
for self-funded (ERISA) plans)
Alabama: http://www.aldoi.gov/Consumers/default.aspx
Alaska: http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/insurance/consumerinfo.htm
Arizona: http://www.id.state.az.us/
Arkansas: http://www.insurance.arkansas.gov/Consumers/divpage.htm
California: http://www.insurance.ca.gov/0100-consumers/0020-health-related/
Colorado: http://www.dora.state.co.us/insurance/consumer/HealthMainPage.htm
Connecticut: http://www.ct.gov/cid/cwp/view.asp?Q=390126&cidNav=|
Delaware: http://delawareinsurance.gov/departments/consumer/consumerhp.shtml
District of Columbia:
http://disr.dc.gov/disr/cwp/view,a,1299,Q,634581,disrNav,|32810|.asp
Georgia: http://www.gainsurance.org/ConsumerService/HealthInsurance.aspx
Florida: http://www.floir.com/
Hawaii: http://hawaii.gov/dcca/ins/consumer/consumer_information/health
Idaho: http://www.doi.idaho.gov/
Illinois: http://insurance.illinois.gov/
Indiana: http://www.in.gov/idoi/
Iowa: http://www.iid.state.ia.us/
Kansas: http://www.ksinsurance.org/
Kentucky: http://insurance.ky.gov/Home.aspx?Div_ID=4
Louisiana: http://www.ldi.la.gov/
Maine: http://www.maine.gov/pfr/insurance/consumer/index.htm
Massachusetts:
http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=ocaterminal&L=4&L0=Home&L1=Government&L2=Our+Ag
encies+and+Divisions&L3=Division+of+Insurance&sid=Eoca&b=terminalcontent&f=doi_Divi
sionOfInsurance&csid=Eoca
56


Maryland:
http://www.mdinsurance.state.md.us/sa/jsp/consumer/Consumer.jsp?divisionName=Consu
mer+Information&pageName=/sa/jsp/consumer/Consumer.jsp
Michigan: http://www.michigan.gov/dleg/0,1607,7-154-10555_12902_35510---,00.html
Minnesota: http://www.state.mn.us/portal/mn/jsp/content.do?id=-
536893703&agency=Insurance
Missouri: http://insurance.mo.gov/
Mississippi: http://www.mid.state.ms.us/
Montana: http://www.sao.state.mt.us/
Nebraska: http://www.doi.ne.gov/index.htm
Nevada: http://www.doi.nv.gov/consumer.aspx
New Hampshire: http://www.nh.gov/insurance/
New Jersey: http://www.state.nj.us/dobi/division_consumers/insurance/health.htm
New Mexico: http://www.nmprc.state.nm.us/consumer.htm
New York: http://www.ins.state.ny.us/consindx.htm
North Carolina: http://www.ncdoi.com/
North Dakota: http://www.nd.gov/ndins/consumer/health-insurance/
Ohio: http://www.insurance.ohio.gov/Pages/default.aspx
Oklahoma: http://www.ok.gov/oid/
Oregon: http://www.cbs.state.or.us/external/ins/index.html
Pennsylvania:
http://www.insurance.pa.gov/portal/server.pt/community/services_for_consumers/5232
Puerto Rico: http://www.ocs.gobierno.pr/ocspr/
Rhode Island: http://www.ohic.ri.gov/
South Carolina: http://www.doi.sc.gov/consumer/health.htm
South Dakota: http://www.state.sd.us/drr2/reg/insurance/index.html
Tennessee: http://www.state.tn.us/commerce/insurance/index.shtml
Texas: http://www.tdi.state.tx.us/health/index.html
Utah: http://www.insurance.utah.gov/health/index.html
Vermont: http://www.bishca.state.vt.us/health-care/health-care-administration
Virginia: http://www.scc.virginia.gov/division/boi/webpages/boiconsumer.htm
Washington: http://www.insurance.wa.gov/
Wisconsin: http://oci.wi.gov/consinfo.htm
West Virginia: http://www.wvinsurance.gov/Default.aspx?tabid=373
Wyoming: http://insurance.state.wy.us/

57


FEDERAL RESOURCES

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality section on “Questions and Answers About
Health Insurance”: www.ahrq.gov/consumer/insuranceqa/
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' website on the 2010 health reform
law: healthcare.gov
For information on your new health insurance rights and benefits go to:
http://www.healthcare.gov/foryou/conditions/insurance/index.html
For information on
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services list of exempt state and local plans:
http://www.cms.gov/selffundednonfedgovplans/
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration (SAMHSA): www.samhsa.gov
For information about addiction and mental health generally
National Association of Insurance Commissioners:
http://naic.org/state_web_map.htm
US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS):
https://www.cms.gov/HealthInsReformforConsume/04_TheMentalHealthParityAct.asp
US Department of Labor, Employee Benefits, Security Administration (EBSA):
www.dol.gov/ebsa or Toll-free hotline: 1.866.444.EBSA (3272)
Information on requirements of employer-based insurance coverage and self-insured health
plans. EBSA has benefit advisors who are available to answer questions, provide assistance
in obtaining your benefits.

New Consumer Assistance Grants: www.grants.gov
The Affordable Care Act provides $30 million in new consumer assistance grants to states
and territories to expand consumer assistance at the state level, including:
• Helping consumers enroll in coverage
• Helping consumers file complaints and appeals against health plans
• Educating consumers about their new rights and empowering them to take action
• Tracking consumer complaints to help identify problems and strengthen enforcement
States and territories may partner with non-profits that have a track record of working with
consumers. Applications are available by visiting www.grants.gov and searching for CFDA
number 93.519.

U.S. House: www.house.gov
Use your zip code to find your Member of Congress. Your Member of Congress can help
answer questions and resolve problems with government programs such as Medicaid.
U.S. Senate: www.senate.gov
Your Senator can help answer questions and resolve problems with government programs
such as Medicaid.

58


PARITY IMPLEMENTATION COALITION MEMBERS

The Parity Implementation Coalition members advanced parity legislation for over twelve
years in an effort to end discrimination against individuals and families who seek services
for mental health and substance use disorders and remain committed to its effective
implementation.
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry: www.aacap.org
American Psychiatric Association: www.psych.org
American Society of Addiction Medicine: http://www.asam.org
Betty Ford Center: http://www.bettyfordcenter.org
Hazelden Foundation: http://www.hazelden.org/web/public/publicpolicy.page.
Faces and Voices of Recovery:
http://www.facesandvoicesofrecovery.org/about/campaigns/equity_main_page.php
Mental Health America:
http://takeaction.mentalhealthamerica.net/site/PageServer?pagename=Equity_Campaign_p
arity_legislation
National Alliance on Mental Illness:
http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=Issue_Spotlights&Template=/TaggedPage/Tag
gedPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=5&ContentID=15944
National Association of Psychiatric Health Systems: http://www.naphs.org/
National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare:
http://www.thenationalcouncil.org/cs/public_policy/resources_and_issues/parity
Watershed Addiction Treatment Centers: www.thewatershed.com

The information included in this toolkit should not be substituted for legal counsel.

59


Toolkit final

More Related Content

Similar to Toolkit final (20)

More from The National Council (20)

Toolkit final