Insurance said NO again and I am about to lose it — what worked for you? — Insurance & Access

JennaRN

Senior Member

1,987

8,923

Mar 2024

Colorado

Online

Jun 23, 2025 at 4:00 AM#1

Collecting this in one place because it comes up every few weeks and the answer is always assembled from scratch. It is about cost and coverage, and it is deliberately narrow — everything I am not confident about is marked as such.

What is actually established

Denials are usually procedural rather than clinical, and the order that works reflects that. Get the denial reason in writing, because it names the criterion you failed. Then supply the documentation that criterion asks for — usually documented BMI with a comorbidity, or a failed prior therapy. Then appeal, and ask for a peer-to-peer review, because a prescriber talking to a reviewing clinician resolves a large fraction of denials that written appeals do not. Manufacturer copay assistance is separate and applies mainly to commercial insurance, and patient assistance programmes are means-tested rather than a discount.

The condition it depends on

Coverage criteria are plan-specific rather than insurer-specific. Two people with the same insurer and different employers have different rules, which is why "my insurer covers it" is not transferable information.

What I am not sure about

So the question, as narrowly as I can put it: what actually works on a prior-authorisation denial, as opposed to the list of things that sound like they should work. I would rather have one careful answer than five confident ones.

— JennaRN · corrections welcome and will be edited into this post with credit

40 10Dr.KarenChen, Dr.NateNeph, PharmD_Rodriguez and 37 others

Reply Quote Save Share Report

Dr.PeteFamMed

Senior Member

2,012

9,234

Jan 2024

Minneapolis, MN

Jun 23, 2025 at 4:11 AM#2

JennaRN said:
Denials are usually procedural rather than clinical, and the order that works reflects that.

JennaRN said:
...compounded vs brand cost and coverage...

This debate comes up weekly and I think both sides have valid points:

Pro-brand: FDA-approved, manufacturing standards guaranteed, clinical trial data directly applicable

Pro-compounded: 10x cost savings, same active molecule, independent testing available, accessibility

My position: if you can afford brand or have insurance coverage, that's the gold standard. If not, properly tested compounded from a 503B pharmacy is a reasonable alternative. Neither side should shame the other.

Last edited: Jun 23, 2025 at 5:11 AM

39 9tommy_boulder, hyun_seoul, jim_asheville and 36 others

Reply Quote Save Share Report

TrialTracker_MD

Senior Member

2,345

15,678

Jan 2024

Maryland

Jun 23, 2025 at 4:22 AM#3

JennaRN said:
Denials are usually procedural rather than clinical, and the order that works reflects that.

I read this differently from JennaRN, on substance rather than tone. The affordability discussion here usually stops at individual tactics. At list price this class is out of reach for most of the people who would benefit, and no amount of appeal strategy changes that — it is a pricing problem wearing a paperwork costume.

Last edited: Jun 23, 2025 at 9:22 AM

38 8maya_sedona, stefan_berlin, Dr.EM_Chicago and 35 others

Reply Quote Save Share Report