Prior authorization management
Auth requirements are expanding and payer turnaround is slowing. We submit, track, and escalate so procedures aren't delayed and claims aren't denied.
The problem this fixes
Prior authorisation has become one of the heaviest administrative burdens in outpatient care. Requirements vary by payer, plan, and procedure, they change without notice, and a missed auth produces a CO-197 denial that is difficult to overturn after the fact.
For staff, it's phone queues and portal submissions. For patients, it's delayed care. For the practice, it's either unpaid work or cancelled procedures.
What makes it worse than an ordinary denial is that there is usually nobody left to bill. A CO-197 is frequently unappealable, and under many participating provider agreements the balance cannot be transferred to the patient where the loss resulted from the practice failing to obtain authorisation. The service was delivered, the cost was incurred, and the revenue does not exist.
What goes wrong when this is done badly
Four failure modes we see repeatedly, and each one is a process problem rather than an effort problem.
Working from remembered requirements
Authorisation requirements vary by payer, by plan within a payer, and by CPT code, and they change without notice. A requirement confirmed last quarter is not evidence about this one.
Obtaining the auth and losing the number
The approval sits in a fax confirmation or an inbox and never reaches the claim. The service was authorised and the claim still denies, which is the most frustrating version of CO-197 there is.
Submitting without the clinical record
A request sent without the supporting notes gets pended, and a pended request becomes an expired one. Assembling the documentation first is faster than chasing afterwards.
Losing count of authorised units
Courses of treatment continue on their own clinical rhythm; the authorisation does not. Sessions delivered past an exhausted count are usually unpaid and often unbillable to the patient too.
What's included
Every item below is a deliverable, not a capability statement.
Auth requirement determination
By payer, plan, and CPT code.
Request submission
Via payer portal, fax, or phone — whichever the payer requires.
Clinical documentation assembly
Assembled and submitted with the request.
Status tracking
On a fixed follow-up cadence, not ad hoc.
Escalation
When payers exceed their own turnaround standards.
Peer-to-peer review scheduling
Coordinated with the ordering provider.
Denial appeals on authorisation decisions
Including clinical rationale.
Auth number capture
Attached to the claim so it is not lost between systems.
Expiration and unit-count tracking
For ongoing treatment and therapy courses.
Retroactive authorisation requests
Where a payer’s policy permits them.
How it works
- 1 Determine We check whether the specific plan requires auth for the specific CPT code.
- 2 Submit Request filed with the clinical documentation the payer expects.
- 3 Track Followed up on a fixed cadence until a decision arrives.
- 4 Escalate Escalated when the payer exceeds its own stated turnaround.
- 5 Attach and monitor Auth number attached to the claim; remaining units tracked to expiry.
How an authorisation fails
| Failure | What actually happened | How we prevent it |
|---|---|---|
| Requirement not known | The plan required authorisation for this specific CPT code and nobody checked | Requirement determined per payer, plan and code at scheduling |
| Request pended | Submitted without the clinical documentation the payer expects | Clinical package assembled to the payer's published criteria before submission |
| Approval never attached | The authorisation exists in a fax confirmation and not on the claim | Auth number captured against the claim at the point of approval |
| Units exhausted | Treatment continued past the approved count | Remaining units tracked per patient and re-authorised before the last covered visit |
| Authorisation expired | The procedure was rescheduled past the approval window | Validity dates tracked, and re-requested when a date moves |
| Denied on clinical grounds | The criteria were not met, or not evidenced | Appeal with the record, and peer-to-peer review scheduled with the ordering provider |
What you get back
- A live auth status list by patient and procedure
- Auth numbers captured against the claim, not held in an inbox
- Remaining units and expiry dates reported before they run out
- Escalation history you can show a payer
Who this is for
- Specialties with heavy auth burden — orthopedics, pain management, behavioral health, radiology
- Practices seeing recurring CO-197 denials
- Practices cancelling or postponing procedures while auth is pending
- Practices running courses of treatment with authorised unit counts
What we measure
The numbers this service actually moves. You see all of them weekly, in your own system, with the benchmark alongside.
-
Requests submitted before the date of service As a share of all requests. A practice submitting retroactive requests is not managing authorisation; it is apologising for it. This is the metric that tells you which one you are doing.
-
CO-197 denial volume and value Both matter. CO-197 denials are frequently unappealable and, under many participating provider agreements, cannot be billed to the patient either, so the dollar value is a straight loss.
-
Turnaround against payer standard Days from submission to decision, measured against each payer's own published standard. It is what makes escalation a fact rather than an argument.
-
Authorised units remaining by patient For therapy, behavioural health, wound care and any course of treatment. Re-authorisation has to be filed before the last covered visit, not after the denial.
Benchmark ranges are sourced from MGMA and HFMA MAP Keys. MedBil's own figures are published only with a stated measurement window, per specification section 12.7.
Where this matters most
The specialties where this part of the cycle carries the most risk and the most recoverable revenue.
Start with your own numbers
We measure your denial rate, A/R ageing and net collection rate against industry benchmarks before you commit to anything. You keep the analysis either way.
- 90 days of claims data, no patient identifiers needed
- A written analysis, not a sales deck
- No contract, and no obligation to proceed
- Client results published with a stated measurement window, once available
Questions about prior authorization services
How long do authorisations take?
It varies by payer and urgency — from same-day to several weeks. We track and escalate against each payer’s stated standard.
What if an authorisation is denied?
We appeal and coordinate peer-to-peer review with the ordering provider.
Can you get retroactive authorisation?
Some payers allow it in defined circumstances. We pursue it where the policy permits.
Related
Where this connects to the rest of the cycle.
Denial Management & Appeals
Root-cause analysis, corrected claims, and clinical appeals filed inside payer deadlines.
See denial managementAccounts Receivable Recovery
We work aged and legacy receivables other billers gave up on.
See A/R recoveryEligibility & Benefits Verification
Coverage and benefits confirmed before the visit, not after the denial.
See eligibility verification