Skip to content
Health Plan agents
InsuranceHealth PlanUtilization Management & Prior Authorization

Adverse Determination Dossier Agent

Builds the clinician-ready decision packet and the draft notice for every case heading toward a non-approval.

Everything it produces is addressed to a doctor. A proton-therapy request in Texas heading for a non-approval gets a record extract, the criteria version applied, the clinical facts that failed, and a reviewer requirement of Texas licensure in the same or a similar specialty. The stated reason on the notice is a clinical fact, never a criteria label, and the physician signs.

Authority

Prepare

Team role

Completes a defined task

Handoffs

Named collaborators

The role

What it owns and where its authority ends

Desk

Utilization Management & Prior Authorization

Desk workflow

Take the request on whatever channel it arrives, start the correct clock under the correct rulebook, assemble the clinical packet and rank the governing criteria, let the approvals that sit inside explicit criteria go out under licensed supervision, route everything else to a physician or appropriate clinical peer with the dossier and draft notice already built, then audit the whole path for any request that ended without one.

Collaboration

Moves work through defined stages

Decision boundary

Assembles the work product; approval remains elsewhere.

Systems and capabilities involved

  • MHK determination and notice workflow

  • CMS-10003-NDMCP notice templates

    The Integrated Denial Notice form set for Medicare Advantage, with the ACA and Medicaid content rules alongside.

  • Reviewer credential and state licensure register

  • InterQual Decision Reasons

    Member-readable rationale language, used as raw material for the notice rather than as the reason itself.

  • Specialty-matched physician reviewer

Handoffs

What this role gives and receives

Capabilities offered

Determination dossier and draft notice

Assembles the record, criteria basis and failed elements into a reviewer packet, drafts the notice, and names the credential the reviewer must hold.

Receives:
Criteria finding, case record, member line of business, state of service, and prior reviewer ledger
Returns:
Reviewer packet, draft notice with specific reason and appeal rights, credential requirement, and peer-to-peer log entry

External handoff

Plan medical director

External handoff

Contracted specialty physician reviewer

External handoff

Treating practitioner

Context

What the role needs to do the work

Current work
Record extract, criteria version and failed elements, required reviewer credential, draft notice text, and the remaining clock.
Prior interactions
Who touched this case, in what role, with what credential, including anyone consulted on an earlier determination.
Policies and reference
Notice content rules by line of business, state reviewer-qualification law, and the credential map for each denial type.
Working method
Peer-to-peer offer and logging standard, and the reconsideration non-involvement check.

Illustrative workflow

How the work moves

Starting point

A proton beam therapy request for a Texas member with a base-of-skull tumor fails the plan's criteria for the requested modality.

  1. 01

    Assemble the pathology, imaging, prior radiation history and the comparative dose plan the oncology office submitted.

  2. 02

    Derive the reviewer requirement: a Texas-licensed radiation oncologist of the same or similar specialty under 28 Tex. Admin. Code 19.1732(b).

  3. 03

    Draft the notice with the clinical facts that failed, the criteria source and version, member-readable rationale and appeal rights.

  4. 04

    Log the peer-to-peer offer with method, name and timestamp into the denial file, and set the deadline alarm to fire whether or not the treating oncologist calls back.

Result

A dossier and draft notice staged for the specialty-matched physician reviewer, who forms the judgment, decides, and signs the determination.

Checks and boundaries

What must be tested or reviewed

  1. 01Notice-sufficiency audit on sampled drafts: each must carry a specific clinical reason, the criteria set and version applied, the facts that failed, member-readable rationale, and complete appeal rights, scored against 42 CFR 422.122(a), the CMS-10003-NDMCP instructions and the ACA content rules.
  2. 02Reviewer-match check: the required credential is derived for every packet (physician, nurse practitioner where the practice act allows, pharmacist, doctoral-level psychologist, addiction-medicine specialist, physical therapist or behavior analyst), together with any state specialty and in-state licensure requirement.
  3. 03Reconsideration non-involvement replay: given a who-touched-this ledger, a proposed reviewer who worked the original determination, or who reports to whoever did, is refused with the conflict named.
  4. 04A pending peer-to-peer never consumes the determination clock, and a criteria label never stands in for the specific reason the notice requires.

Human authority

  • The plan medical director or the specialty-matched physician reviewer forms the clinical judgment and signs the determination; the packet carries no authority of its own.
  • On reconsideration a physician not involved in the original determination, and not a subordinate of anyone who was, takes the case.
  • The treating practitioner holds the peer-to-peer opportunity, which is a conversation and not an appeal.

Keep exploring