It was UHC that was requesting it not HR. From me starting to dig into this I get the imnpression that UHC thinks the these artificial disks just fell out of the sky within the past year and they are all standing around it looking at it saying ohhhh what is that shiny thing? They seem totally clueless. Part of what I left out to the original post in addition to the which and who was; "was the coverage issue imapcted by the severity of the diagnosis or previous treatment tried without success" I don't even think they read the FDA approval which requires 6 months of conservative treatment, etc.
Kim, I plan on using the aetna policy as part of my appeal.
If anyone wants to keep their name out of it that's fine with me.
|