Prior Auth

Peer-to-Peer Review Requests for Fertility Medical Necessity

A complete guide to requesting, preparing for, and winning peer-to-peer reviews for IVF and ART medical necessity denials — including payer-specific contact methods, P2P timing windows, and the clinical arguments to make on the call.

Jennifer Mitchell, CPC·June 24, 2026·Updated November 12, 2026·12 min read

A peer-to-peer review is a direct phone call between the treating REI physician and the payer's assigned medical director or clinical reviewer, requested after a utilization management denial of a fertility service — most commonly IVF retrieval (CPT 58970), embryo transfer (CPT 58974), or the associated embryology laboratory codes (89250–89281). It is not a formal appeal and does not require submitting a written claim correction. It is a clinical conversation between two physicians about one patient's specific medical situation. The payer pages cited in this guide do not publish P2P overturn rates, so measure your own by payer (see the tracking section below). Despite this, peer-to-peer reviews are chronically underutilized by fertility practices because the process is poorly understood, the payer-specific request windows are frequently missed, and the REI physicians who must conduct the call are often given inadequate preparation support by billing staff. This guide covers every element of the P2P process in fertility billing: when to request it, how to request it at each major payer, how to prepare the REI physician for the call, what clinical arguments to make, and how to document the outcome in the practice management system.

What a Peer-to-Peer Review Is — and What It Is Not

A peer-to-peer review is a utilization management (UM) process, not an appeal process. That distinction matters for how the request is submitted, who handles it on the payer side, and what the outcome means for claim processing. A P2P call happens when the treating physician contacts the payer's UM medical director to discuss a denial of authorization for a service that has been denied on prospective, concurrent, or retrospective review grounds. The UM medical director has the authority to reverse the clinical denial immediately on the call and issue a new authorization number — no formal appeal filing is required, no written documentation package needs to be submitted, and the authorization can in some cases be issued the same day as the call. This makes P2P review the fastest available resolution path for fertility UM denials when the request is timely and the physician is prepared.

A peer-to-peer review is not a substitute for a formal appeal and is not available at all points in the appeals process. Payers that offer P2P only accept the request within a defined window after the initial UM denial, and the window can be very short: UnitedHealthcare's provider appeals page says most reviews need to be requested within 24 hours of the coverage denial, with outer limits of 3 business days for inpatient cases and 21 calendar days for outpatient cases from the posted denial. Other payers set their own windows, and some do not publish one, so read the deadline from the denial letter. After that window closes, the practice must proceed through the formal first-level written appeal process, which runs on the plan's appeal decision timeline instead of a scheduled call. UnitedHealthcare's scheduling form also says a peer-to-peer can only be requested before an appeal is submitted. Missing the P2P window takes the call off the table and leaves only the written appeal, which is why tracking the UM denial date and the applicable P2P request deadline is a front-end billing function that should be calendared the day the denial letter is received.

P2P Request Timing: The Critical Window Most Practices Miss

The P2P request window is independent of the formal appeal window and is typically much shorter. The window to request a peer-to-peer review of a prospective fertility authorization denial runs from the UM denial determination (UnitedHealthcare counts from the posted denial) — not from the date the practice received the denial letter in the mail, and not from the date the denial EOB was issued. Practices that calendar the P2P deadline from the EOB date rather than the UM determination letter date can find themselves outside the P2P window, because any EOB is generated after the UM determination, and a denied prior authorization may not produce an EOB at all. For fertility cycles that were not authorized before the retrieval date, this timing error results in forfeiting the fastest available resolution pathway at the moment it is most urgently needed.

Critical: Calendar the P2P Deadline From the UM Determination Letter, Not the EOB

The peer-to-peer request window begins on the date of the utilization management denial determination, which is printed on the UM denial letter — not on the date the Explanation of Benefits is generated, and not on the date the practice receives the denial in the mail. Aetna does not publish a P2P request window on its provider disputes and appeals pages, so take the deadline from the Aetna denial letter. UnitedHealthcare's provider appeals page says most P2P reviews need to be requested within 24 hours of the coverage denial, with outer limits of 3 business days for inpatient cases and 21 calendar days for outpatient cases from the posted denial, varying by plan and state. Cigna's provider appeal policy page states no P2P window, and each BCBS plan sets its own, so take those deadlines from the denial letter or the plan's UM team. Any EOB comes after the UM determination, and a denied prior authorization may not produce one at all, so practices that wait for the EOB can miss short windows such as UnitedHealthcare's 24-hour guidance before they have even identified the denial as P2P-eligible. Assign P2P deadline tracking to the authorization team — not the appeals team — and calendar the deadline on the day the UM denial letter is received, treating it as a same-day action item.

Payer-Specific P2P Process, Contact Methods, and Timelines

Payer	P2P Request Window	How to Request	Who Conducts the Call	Key Process Notes
Aetna	No P2P window published on Aetna's provider disputes and appeals pages — take the deadline from the denial letter. The published formal route runs separately: reconsideration within 180 calendar days of the initial claim decision, then appeal within 60 calendar days of the reconsideration decision	Use the contact on the Aetna denial determination letter; Aetna offers P2P "under certain circumstances" for medical-necessity precertification determinations made under its Clinical Policy Bulletins. Reconsiderations and appeals go through the Availity provider website or by mail to the address on the denial letter or EOB	Aetna's disputes and appeals overview says "your physician may request a peer to peer review", so have the treating REI physician make the request and take the call; Aetna publishes no rule on requests placed by billing staff, so confirm the route on the denial letter	Aetna's UM medical directors review the case against CPB 0327 during the call; the REI physician should have the specific subsection of CPB 0327 applicable to the patient's diagnosis open during the call and be prepared to address each criterion the denial determination cited as unmet
United Healthcare	Per UHC's provider appeals page: most reviews need to be requested within 24 hours of coverage denial (varies by plan and state); inpatient cases within 3 business days and outpatient cases within 21 calendar days from the posted denial	Complete UHC's online peer-to-peer scheduling request form, linked from the UHCprovider.com appeals page; UHC notes P2P is available for UnitedHealthcare-managed prior authorizations, not third-party vendors, so a denial issued by a delegated vendor follows that vendor's process	Have the treating REI physician take the call. UHC's scheduling form says a peer to peer can only be requested by a physician or their office, schedules the call between the UHC medical director and the requesting physician, and asks the office to confirm the physician is available at the confirmed time	UHC Medical Policy 2026T0270NN directs infertility medical necessity reviews to the Optum Fertility Solutions Infertility Medical Necessity Guideline, so prepare the call against that guideline; UHC says the review can be done before submitting an appeal, and directs a pre-service appeal when a peer-to-peer review is not possible; its scheduling form says P2P requests can only be made before an appeal is submitted, so do not file the appeal first; with an imminent retrieval date, request the P2P the same day as the denial, because UHC asks for most requests within 24 hours
Cigna	Cigna's provider appeal policy page states no P2P request window — take the deadline from the Cigna denial letter, counted from the UM determination date	Cigna's public provider precertification and appeal pages do not describe a peer-to-peer request route; use the reviewer contact on the Cigna denial letter, or ask Cigna provider customer service how to schedule a P2P for the case	Treating REI physician; Cigna does not publish whether another physician (for example, the referring physician) may take the call instead, so confirm with the Cigna reviewer before scheduling	Cigna's infertility criteria are in Medical Coverage Policy 0089, so prepare the call against it; calendar the P2P deadline from the UM determination date on the denial letter, not from the EOB; if the determination was issued by a separate fertility benefit manager rather than Cigna, ask that vendor how it handles clinical review requests — Cigna's public pages do not describe P2P routing for fertility carve-out vendors
BCBS (state plans)	No single BCBS window — each Blue plan sets its own; take it from the denial letter, and for BlueCard patients get it from the home plan	State plan provider portal or clinical reviewer line on UM denial letter; BlueCard inter-plan P2P requests must route to the home plan's clinical team — contact the home plan's provider services line to obtain the correct P2P request contact for the member's home plan	Treating REI physician; each Blue plan sets its own rules on who may take the call, so confirm with the home plan's UM team before scheduling	Home plan coverage criteria govern for all BlueCard inter-plan cases; state fertility mandate requirements apply based on the home plan's state (e.g., Illinois mandate applies to Illinois BCBS fully insured plans regardless of where the service was rendered); local state plan criteria and P2P contacts do not apply to BlueCard patients from out-of-state plans
Progyny	Not published on Progyny's public website — ask Progyny for the deadline when the determination is issued	Use the Progyny contact on the authorization or determination notice and ask whether a clinical review with a Progyny physician reviewer is available for the case	Not published; confirm with Progyny whether the treating REI physician or the clinic medical director should take any clinical review call	Separate clinical disputes from administrative ones (Smart Cycle allocation, authorization errors, or services outside the authorized cycle dates) and ask Progyny which team handles each; because Progyny does not publish its provider dispute process, record the answer and the contact with the case

How to Prepare the REI Physician for the P2P Call

The single most important determinant of P2P overturn success is how well the REI physician is prepared before the call. Payer medical directors conducting P2P calls for fertility denials have reviewed the same case from the same payer policy perspective before picking up the phone — and an REI physician who enters the call without the specific denial criteria, the patient's matching clinical documentation, and published literature support is at an informational disadvantage from the opening minute. The billing team's role is to prepare a one-page P2P briefing document for the physician that covers the four elements the payer medical director will evaluate: the specific denial criteria cited in the UM determination letter, the patient's clinical data that addresses each criterion, the payer's own policy language that supports coverage for this patient, and any ASRM or peer-reviewed literature that is directly applicable to the patient's diagnosis and clinical situation.

UM denial determination letter: provide the physician with a copy of the full UM denial letter, not just the EOB, because the UM letter specifies the exact clinical criteria the payer determined were unmet — the EOB states the financial outcome but does not provide the clinical rationale; the P2P call must be structured around the specific unmet criteria cited in the UM letter, not around a general defense of IVF as appropriate treatment
Payer policy document excerpt: print or pull up the specific subsection of the payer's clinical policy bulletin or coverage determination guideline that applies to this patient's diagnosis; highlight the exact criteria that the payer cited as unmet and the adjacent criteria the patient does meet, so the physician can address both the payer's stated concern and the surrounding criteria that support coverage
Patient clinical summary on one page: document the patient's primary diagnosis with ICD-10 code, duration of infertility with exact month count, all prior fertility treatments attempted (IUI cycle count with dates, protocols, and outcomes), relevant diagnostic results (AMH, AFC, semen analysis, HSG, operative reports), and the clinical rationale for IVF — keep this to a single page that the physician can reference during the call without needing to scroll through the full chart
Prior authorization and claims history: confirm whether a prior authorization was obtained, the authorization number and dates if applicable, and any prior claims for fertility services submitted for this patient at this payer — the payer medical director may reference the claims history during the call, and the physician should know if there were prior cycles covered, prior denials, or prior authorizations that were issued and subsequently questioned
Published clinical literature if applicable: for non-standard clinical situations such as recurrent pregnancy loss, premature ovarian insufficiency in women under 35, severe male factor azoospermia requiring TESE, or Stage IV endometriosis, prepare a one-paragraph summary of the ASRM Practice Committee guideline or peer-reviewed literature most directly applicable to the patient's case; payer medical directors give weight to ASRM guidelines specifically because ASRM is the recognized specialty society authority, and citing an ASRM guideline section number during the call gives the medical director a policy justification for reversal that is defensible within the payer's quality review system
Specific ask at the close of the call: coach the physician to end the call with a direct, specific request — not "I hope you'll consider this" but "Based on the clinical documentation I've described, I am requesting that you reverse the UM denial and issue a prior authorization for CPT 58970 and CPT 58974 for [patient name], authorization effective for services beginning [date]"; the medical director must take an action at the end of a P2P call, and a specific request with CPT codes and effective dates makes it easier for the medical director to enter the authorization in the UM system before hanging up

Common Fertility Denial Reasons and How to Address Them in the P2P Call

Denial Reason	Payers Most Likely to Use	What the Payer MD Is Looking For	P2P Talking Points and Documentation to Reference
Insufficient infertility duration — 12-month requirement not met for patient under 35	Aetna (CPB 0327), UHC (Medical Policy 2026T0270NN), most BCBS state plans	Documentation that meets the payer's own duration definition, with diagnosis-specific exceptions: UHC Policy 2026T0270NN counts 12 months of regular unprotected intercourse without pregnancy when the female partner is under 35, or 6 months at 35 and older; Aetna CPB 0327 instead requires an appropriate trial of egg-sperm contact documented in the medical record — 12 months of regular intravaginal inseminations or 4 cycles of timed intrauterine or intracervical insemination under 35, or 6 months or 3 cycles at 35 and older	If the patient has a diagnosis-specific exception (e.g., bilateral tubal occlusion, POI, severe male factor azoospermia) that makes the duration requirement clinically inapplicable, cite the exception directly from the payer's own policy language by section and page number; if no exception applies, provide the patient's documented sexual history from the clinical record showing the actual duration and explain any clinical factor that delayed diagnosis and treatment
Prior treatment failure not documented — insufficient ovulation-induction or IUI cycle count for the covered diagnosis	Aetna, whose CPB 0327 requires 3 failed cycles of oral or injectable ovulation induction (with or without insemination) at age 37 and under, and any plan whose own documents add an IUI step. The Optum guideline UHC applies has no IUI prerequisite for unexplained infertility (it caps IUI at 3 cycles), and Cigna Policy 0089 sets no IUI step	Clinical notes or cycle summary reports documenting the number of IUI cycles attempted, ovarian stimulation protocol used, peak follicle count and estradiol levels on trigger day, insemination date, sperm preparation parameters, and documented outcome (negative beta hCG) for each cycle	Provide cycle summary data for each prior IUI during the call; if fewer than the required number of IUI cycles were attempted, explain the clinical reason IUI was discontinued. Check whether the patient fits a situation the payer's own document exempts from the trial: Aetna CPB 0327, for example, requires no ovulation-induction trial at age 38 or older and lists situations where insemination would not be expected to work (azoospermia or severe semen deficits, bilateral tubal disease, stage 3 or 4 endometriosis). If the patient fits one, cite that section. If not, the reason for stopping IUI is a clinical argument for the medical director, not a policy waiver, so present it that way
Diagnosis not on covered indications list — ICD-10 code submitted not recognized by payer for IVF coverage	All commercial payers; most common when Z31.83 (encounter for ART) is used instead of the underlying infertility diagnosis, or when an encounter code rather than condition code is submitted	The covered diagnosis list for IVF in the payer's clinical policy, matched against the patient's documented clinical infertility condition	On the call, state the clinically correct ICD-10 code for the patient's condition (e.g., N97.1 for bilateral tubal occlusion, E28.39 for primary ovarian insufficiency) and cite the diagnostic evidence in the chart that supports it; for Aetna, reference CPB 0327 Exhibit A (or equivalent section) listing covered diagnoses; confirm whether a corrected claim resubmission is needed with the corrected ICD-10 code alongside any authorization that the P2P reversal produces
Diminished ovarian reserve — AMH or AFC values not provided or not below payer threshold	Aetna, UHC — Aetna CPB 0327 lists E28.39 among the codes covered if its selection criteria are met (its ovarian-reserve measure is day-3 FSH), and the Optum guideline UHC applies lists diminished ovarian reserve as an ART indication, recognized by FSH of 10 mIU/mL or more, AMH below 1.0 ng/mL, or AFC below 7; denial occurs when the lab value is not attached to the authorization request	Laboratory report for AMH (Quest, LabCorp, or local lab) with the numeric value, reference range, and date of collection; transvaginal ultrasound report documenting total antral follicle count on cycle day 2–3	Read the specific AMH value and AFC count from the patient's records during the call; cite Aetna CPB 0327 or, for UHC, the Optum Fertility Solutions Infertility Medical Necessity Guideline by title and the specific section that covers diminished ovarian reserve; for UHC, also note that the Optum guideline lists IUI as not indicated beyond 3 cycles in the setting of diminished ovarian reserve, so a request to continue IUI past that point conflicts with the payer's own guideline
Male factor — semen analysis not provided or values outside the payer's severe male factor definition	No common threshold: the Optum guideline UHC applies says IUI is not indicated for severe male factor (under 5 million sperm/mL or under 1 million motile sperm after preparation); Aetna CPB 0327 waives the egg-sperm contact trial for severe deficits defined in its appendix (under 10 million total motile sperm unwashed or under 3 million washed on 2 analyses at least 2 weeks apart, or under 4% strict normal forms); Cigna 0089 states no IUI-bypass threshold	WHO 6th Edition 2021 semen analysis report with total count, progressive motility percentage, morphology (Kruger strict criteria), and calculated total motile count, plus the post-preparation motile count where the payer's definition uses it; report dated within 12 months of the authorization request	State the values that match the payer's own definition during the call — concentration and post-preparation motile count for the Optum guideline, total motile sperm on both analyses for Aetna — and read back the policy language: the Optum guideline lists severe male factor among situations where IUI is not indicated, and Aetna CPB 0327 names severe semen deficits among cases where inseminations would not be expected to be effective and IVF would be expected to be the only effective treatment; for azoospermia, reference the azoospermia finding directly and note that IUI is physically impossible with zero sperm in the ejaculate
Experimental or investigational — PGT-A or ERA billing challenged as not medically necessary	Aetna, Cigna, some BCBS plans — PGT-A (billed under 81479 or carrier-specific code) and ERA (endometrial receptivity array, also billed under 81479 or 86849) are subject to experimental/investigational denial at some payers	Published clinical evidence supporting the specific add-on technology for this patient's clinical indication; ASRM committee opinion on PGT-A or ERA if available	For PGT-A, cite the ASRM Committee Opinion on preimplantation genetic testing (most recent version) and the clinical indication (recurrent pregnancy loss, advanced maternal age, prior aneuploid pregnancy); note that untested embryo transfer in a patient with documented prior aneuploid pregnancies or RPL exposes the patient to ongoing pregnancy loss risk; for ERA, acknowledge that evidence is evolving and focus the P2P argument on the specific patient's prior implantation failures and the clinical rationale for endometrial receptivity assessment before the next transfer

ICD-10 Diagnoses That Produce the Strongest P2P Arguments

Not all fertility P2P calls start from the same position. Certain ICD-10 diagnoses carry built-in advantages in the P2P setting because they are explicitly recognized as direct IVF indications in the clinical policy documents of every major commercial payer — meaning the payer medical director reviewing the case has a policy-level basis to authorize IVF immediately on the call without needing to make a novel clinical coverage determination. Diagnoses that bypass the IUI step requirement in most payer policies are the strongest P2P candidates because the clinical argument is straightforward: the payer's own policy exempts this patient from the prerequisite that was cited as unmet in the denial. In contrast, diagnoses that do not carry an explicit IUI bypass in the payer's policy require a medical exception argument that depends more heavily on the physician's clinical explanation of why IUI is contraindicated for this specific patient — a stronger argument is possible, but it requires the physician to be more thoroughly prepared.

E28.39 (Other primary ovarian failure / primary ovarian insufficiency): present the lab values confirming FSH elevation and estradiol suppression alongside the patient's age. Confirm first which treatment the plan covers: the Optum guideline UHC applies says ART is not indicated for ovarian failure when the couple is using its own gametes, so the P2P request may need to be framed as donor-oocyte IVF. Use E28.310/E28.319 only when premature menopause is documented
N97.1 (Female infertility due to tubal disease): bilateral tubal occlusion documented by HSG or operative laparoscopy is a near-universal IVF bypass at all major payers; the P2P argument is simple — IUI is anatomically impossible when both tubes are occluded; for hydrosalpinges requiring salpingectomy, cite the published literature demonstrating that untreated hydrosalpinges impair IVF success rates and that salpingectomy is the standard of care; bring the HSG report or operative report reference numbers to the call
N46.01 / N46.021–N46.029 (Azoospermia — organic, or due to an extratesticular cause such as efferent duct obstruction): zero sperm in the ejaculate makes conventional IUI non-contributory; IVF with ICSI (89280/89281) using surgically retrieved sperm is the only viable option; the medical director has no clinical basis to require IUI step-through when there are no sperm to inseminate; bring the semen analysis confirming azoospermia and the urologist or reproductive urology consultation note documenting the retrieval plan
Endometriosis Stage III / IV, coded by site (N80.1- ovary, N80.2- fallopian tube, N80.3- pelvic peritoneum, etc. — ICD-10-CM has no stage codes): severe endometriosis with documented ovarian endometriomas, extensive adhesive disease, or bilateral tubo-ovarian involvement produces a strong P2P argument for direct IVF access; bring the operative laparoscopy report specifying the endometriosis stage and anatomic findings; cite ASRM's most recent practice guideline on endometriosis-associated infertility, which supports IVF as the preferred treatment for Stage III/IV endometriosis-related infertility
N97.8 (Female infertility of other origin) for diminished ovarian reserve: ICD-10-CM has no DOR-specific code, and its index sends female infertility of specified origin NEC to N97.8. Aetna CPB 0327 brackets poor ovarian reserve under E28.39 and E28.310–E28.319 in its covered-code list (the list also includes N97.0–N97.9), so check which code the plan's policy lists before the call. The Optum guideline UHC applies lists diminished ovarian reserve as an ART indication; on the P2P call, cite the policy section by title and give the patient's numeric AMH, AFC and FSH values. With a UHC reviewer, point to the Optum markers (FSH of 10 mIU/mL or more, AMH below 1.0 ng/mL, or AFC below 7); CPB 0327 states no AMH cutoff, so do not assert one to an Aetna reviewer; note that delaying IVF to complete additional IUI cycles in a patient with documented DOR would further deplete ovarian reserve and reduce the probability of successful retrieval
N97.4 (Female infertility associated with male factor) for severe male factor: match the semen analysis to the payer's own definition, because the numbers differ — the Optum guideline UHC applies uses under 5 million sperm/mL or under 1 million motile sperm after preparation; Aetna CPB 0327 uses under 10 million total motile sperm unwashed or under 3 million washed on 2 analyses at least 2 weeks apart, or under 4% strict normal forms. Bring the analyses with the values calculated, note the date each was performed, and verify the definition against the current policy version before the call

P2P vs. Written Appeal: How to Sequence Them Strategically

Peer-to-peer review and formal written appeal both follow a UM denial, but the order in which they are filed matters. UnitedHealthcare's peer-to-peer scheduling form says peer-to-peer requests can only be made before an appeal is submitted, and that once an appeal has been initiated, prior authorization decisions cannot be changed through the peer-to-peer process. Filing the written appeal first, or at the same time as the P2P request, can therefore take the P2P off the table at UnitedHealthcare. Other payers may sequence the two differently, so check the denial letter and the payer's provider appeal instructions before filing anything. The safe default is to request the P2P first and draft the written appeal in parallel without submitting it, so it can be filed as soon as an unsuccessful P2P is documented. For prospective denials with a retrieval already scheduled, the P2P is usually the quicker route because the medical director can reverse the denial on the call, while a standard written appeal runs on the plan's appeal decision timeline. Ask about expedited handling too: UnitedHealthcare's provider appeals page says an expedited pre-service appeal may be available when the standard time frame could seriously jeopardize the member's life, health or ability to regain maximum function, and that it is not available once the service has been provided. Whether a scheduled retrieval meets that standard is the payer's decision, so do not plan the cycle around it.

For retrospective denials — where the service has already been rendered and the dispute is over payment rather than authorization before service — the P2P and written appeal timelines are less urgent, and the written appeal with complete clinical documentation may in some cases be more effective because the clinical reviewers on retrospective appeals are evaluating a complete record rather than making a real-time prospective coverage determination. However, even for retrospective denials, completing a P2P call first — if the P2P window is still open — is advisable because a P2P reversal resolves the claim faster than a written appeal and avoids consuming the first-level appeal in cases where the clinical facts strongly support coverage. If the P2P fails, the physician's conversation with the payer medical director will reveal the specific sticking points in the payer's clinical analysis, which provides valuable intelligence for structuring the subsequent written appeal to address those points directly.

Documenting the P2P Outcome

Every peer-to-peer call — regardless of outcome — must be documented in the practice management system the same day the call is completed. Documentation failures create three specific downstream problems: if the payer medical director issues a verbal authorization reversal on the call but the authorization number is not recorded, the authorization cannot be populated on the resubmitted claim and the claim will deny again for missing authorization; if the P2P is unsuccessful and the written appeal window is also running, the documented P2P date establishes the timeline for escalating to formal appeal without delay; and if the payer later disputes the outcome of the P2P call or claims no reversal was issued, the practice has no documentation to support its position.

Date and time of the P2P call
Name, credentials, and direct contact number of the payer medical director who conducted the call
CPT codes and ICD-10 codes discussed on the call — record the exact service lines that were the subject of the P2P review
Summary of the clinical arguments presented by the REI physician and the medical director's specific responses to each argument
Outcome of the call: authorization reversal issued (record the new authorization number, effective date range, and authorized CPT codes), authorization upheld (record the medical director's stated reason for upholding the denial, which will inform the written appeal argument), or call deferred for additional clinical record submission (record the specific documentation the medical director requested and the deadline for submitting it)
Follow-up actions assigned: if authorization was reversed, assign a specific staff member to confirm the authorization in the payer portal within 24 hours and to resubmit the denied claim with the new authorization number within 3 business days; if authorization was upheld, calendar the first-level written appeal submission date based on the payer's appeal deadline and assign the appeal drafting task
Name of the billing or authorization staff member who monitored the call, scheduled the call, and prepared the physician briefing document — this documents the support workflow and identifies who owns the follow-up

Tracking P2P Performance as a Billing Metric

Peer-to-peer review performance is a measurable billing metric that should be tracked monthly alongside denial rates, appeal overturn rates, and authorization approval rates. The key P2P metrics are: P2P request rate (percentage of eligible UM denials for which a P2P was requested within the payer window), P2P completion rate (percentage of requested P2P calls that were completed versus missed or cancelled), P2P overturn rate by payer (percentage of completed P2P calls that produced an authorization reversal), and average days from UM denial to P2P completion. No payer page cited in this guide publishes a benchmark request rate, so track the rate against the practice's own history. A falling or persistently low P2P request rate means the billing team is letting the P2P window expire on cases that qualified. Likely causes include failing to identify the P2P window from the UM denial letter, routing the denial to the written appeals team rather than the authorization team, or not briefing the REI physician promptly enough to schedule the call within the payer window.

A falling P2P overturn rate at a payer should trigger a review of the physician preparation process — specifically whether the REI physicians conducting the calls are being provided with the payer-specific policy document, the patient-specific clinical summary, and a defined closing ask before each call. Compare each payer's rate with the practice's own history rather than an outside benchmark, since the payer pages cited in this guide do not publish P2P overturn rates. Each overturned P2P on a prospective denial is an authorized cycle that would otherwise have waited on a written appeal, which is the revenue case for a structured physician preparation workflow.

Have a billing question?

Our team can answer questions specific to your practice's payer mix and procedures.

Book a Free Audit →