# Seriously, Aetna? I don't think so.



## btadlock1

Check out the rationale supporting the denial we got from Aetna over 99051 being billed with 96372 - what's wrong with this picture?

The link has now mysteriously disappeared from their website, from what I could tell, but that's not stopping me from appealing it, anyways. Do you think this is forceful enough? (I attached copies of 5 pages from the CPT book, and a copy of the rationale I attached here):


[I deleted the draft appeal, because I gave the final copy below...it was redundant to have both...]

My thinking is, if they had a change of heart, they should have reprocessed my claims. We'll see how it goes...


----------



## ollielooya

Brandi, thank you for sharing...I've been wondering about this for same time as I have encounted a similar situation with another major payer regarding the use of 99058 (Yes, some payers DO pay on this!) and was informed by a customer service rep that modifier 25 would over-ride the "incidental" edit.  My reaction was similar to yours, EXCEPT I wasn't sure how to proceed, other than to know that following this advice wasn't right so have stepped into the arena of untraveled paths!  If this was a payer specific issue, it sure seemed wrong.  Was not sure how to fight, but figured I'd get started. Your appeal letter just furnished additional ammo and thank you for sharing. 

I hope those who are more experienced with dealing with the "big names of insurances" will jump in.  Keep us informed, please!

---Suzanne E. Byrum CPC


----------



## btadlock1

ollielooya said:


> Brandi, thank you for sharing...I've been wondering about this for same time as I have encounted a similar situation with another major payer regarding the use of 99058 (Yes, some payers DO pay on this!) and was informed by a customer service rep that modifier 25 would over-ride the "incidental" edit.  My reaction was similar to yours, EXCEPT I wasn't sure how to proceed, other than to know that following this advice wasn't right so have stepped into the arena of untraveled paths!  If this was a payer specific issue, it sure seemed wrong.  Was not sure how to fight, but figured I'd get started. Your appeal letter just furnished additional ammo and thank you for sharing.
> 
> I hope those who are more experienced with dealing with the "big names of insurances" will jump in.  Keep us informed, please!
> 
> ---Suzanne E. Byrum CPC



It *can* be done...I've beat payers before (mostly Firstcare on their policies - the most recent being their insistance on making us add AS modifiers to claims for NPP surgical procedures, which they weren't assisting at surgery on, just so that they'd be able to tell that it was a mid-level provider)

I'm guessing this shouldn't be too hard, since they already stripped any reference to this from their website - but they used it to hold up their denial a week ago, so that's recent enough for me to call bulls*** on. I appeal anything I can, as long as I've got a leg to stand on. I've been waiting for a chance to nail Aetna on something - they drive me nuts! 

Plus, it doesn't help that I'm PMS-ing at the moment (which should be obvious by my overly aggressive appeal ), so I'm feeling extra feisty today...good luck! If you need any help with an appeal, you know where to find me!


----------



## btadlock1

*Oh Wow!!!*

Okay, so I found out that I had the address on the link wrong, but it can't be accessed anyways, because it was on a secure connection page...But I can give you one better...I logged into our page, and ran a claim estmator using 99215/25, 99051, and 96372, and got the same denial (see attachment) - it's from McKesson! And their explanation is just as ridiculous as Aetna's! This should be fun... 

Here's the explanation in full (It cut off the very end on the screen capture):
"When a substantial diagnostic or therapeutic procedure is performed, the evaluation and management service is included in the global surgical period as defined by CMS.- Procedures that are assigned a 90-day global surgery period are designated as major surgical procedures; those assigned a 10-day or 0-day global surgery period are designated as minor surgical procedures.- Evaluation and management services, submitted with major surgical procedures, (1-day) pre-operatively, on the same date of service, or during the 90-day postoperative period, are not recommended for separate reporting because they are part of the global service.- Evaluation and management services, submitted with minor surgical procedures, on the same date of service or during the 10-day post-operative period, are not recommended for separate reporting because they are part of the global service.- Evaluation and management services, submitted for "established" patients with minor surgical procedures (0-day), are not recommended for separate reporting on the same date of service because they are part of the global service and because there is an inherent evaluation and management service component included in all surgical procedures.Procedures that are assigned a global period of MMM, XXX, YYY, or ZZZ are audited as follows:- Evaluation and management services, submitted with maternity procedures (MMM), during the antepartum period (270 days), on the same date of service, or during the postpartum period (45 days) are not recommended for separate reporting if the procedure includes antepartum and/or postpartum care.- Evaluation and management services, submitted with XXX anesthesia procedures, 1-day pre-operatively, on the same date of service, or 1-day postoperatively, are not recommended for separate reporting because they are part of the global anesthesia service.- Evaluation and management services, submitted with XXX (excluding anesthesia procedures) or YYY procedures on the same date of service are not recommended for separate reporting if it is determined that the procedure includes an inherent evaluation and management component.- Evaluation and management services, submitted with add-on procedures (ZZZ), are not recommended for separate reporting if the parent procedure includes an inherent evaluation and management component.This rationale does not take into consideration the use of modifiers that may or may not affect the outcome of the claim. 

Therefore, procedure 99051 is not recommended for separate reimbursement when submitted with procedure 96372. "

Now the recommendation of adding a 25 modifier to 99051 makes more sense - it just needed some context. Ha! I never would've guessed...

Brilliant.


----------



## btadlock1

*Last one...I promise!*

I *finally* finished editing my draft appeal (I'm going to delete the rough draft from my other post...), and I'm hoping I've succeeded in eviscerating Aetna and McKesson's claim-edit/coverage policy over this issue. It grew from a 2-page appeal with 6 pages of attachments, to 3 pages, with 10 attachments. The tone is pretty condescending, but I think that the absurdity of their rationale warrants it. 

I've *never* seen a payer policy that is *so* incorrect, in *every possible way* - literally every sentence was _completely_ false, or just irrelevant to the point they're trying to make. It looks like they just threw together a bunch of phrases that sounded good, without checking to see if any of it made sense, first, and made it an 'official policy' - It's almost laughable, really. 
I'm determined to see this one through (and hoping this will be the only appeal I have to send) - McKesson provides scrubbing software for almost every major payer in the industry (if you've ever seen the words 'ClaimCheck" anywhere, that's who's behind it) - if they think that they can get away with just _making crap up _and passing it off as legitimate, they'll only be encouraged to do it more often. This needs to be nipped in the bud. I'm sharing the final copy, for anyone else who comes across this - please feel free to use any of it in your own appeals over this issue, if you want...(I also attached a copy here, because I'm not going back through here and re-adding all of the bold and italics I used for emphasis - it was kind of a lot...)

List of Attachments: (Copies of...)
1. Aetna's payment policy
2. McKesson's edit rationale
3. &  4. Printouts from the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, showing 96372's 'Global' identifier as "XXX"
5. Printout from Highmark Medicare showing that a global designation of "XXX" = "Global concept does not apply"
6. & 7. Pages 514 & 515 of the 2011 CPT book, with 99051 circled, and the title of the Chapter at the top of the page (obnoxiously) circled/starred.
8. Page 4 of the CPT book, with the "Classification of E/M Services" guideline circled
9. Page 11 of the CPT book, with the title at the top circled/starred
10. Page 549 of the CPT book, with the definition of modifier 25 circled, and every single mention of "E/M Service", underlined.
(Sure, they _might_ have their own CPT book, but judging by their policy, I seriously doubt they know how to use it...)

"[Claim info redacted]

On the claim referenced above, we received a denial for CPT 99051, stating that it is incidental to another procedure performed on the same date. An Aetna provider services' representative advised our office that 99051 denied as, 'incidental to CPT 96372 from the same DOS', and referenced a reimbursement policy listed on Aetna's Secure Provider Website, Navinet, (https://www.aetna.com/contentMgt/pws/policies/afterhrs_weekend_cpt.html); and of which, I included a printout. (See: Attachment #1) 

There are numerous, significant flaws with nearly every aspect of this policy, which Aetna has failed to address. 
1. The denial is based on a custom edit, without any merit. This is not a CMS guideline. It is not an NCCI edit. In fact, CPT 99051 isn't listed anywhere on the NCCI edit tables, in conjunction with 96372 (or with any other service in the 90000-99999 code range, for that matter), either as being a component code, or a mutually-excluded service. An omission of the code pair in question, from the NCCI edit tables, should be taken as evidence, that CMS does not support Aetna's coding edit.

2. Just because a procedure is â€œminorâ€�, does not mean that it has an inherent â€œemergency aspectâ€�, to it. In this encounter, the patient received injectable drugs to treat acute sinusitis. Although the condition was acute, and was treated after regular business hours, nothing about the condition, or its treatment, qualified the services provided, as being rendered on an â€œemergencyâ€� basis. Getting a standard antibiotic shot does not constitute an emergency, under any reasonable interpretation, of the definition of the word, â€œemergencyâ€�. The given explanation is certainly not consistent with the published views of any objective, and reputable outside-sources (eg, CMS, AMA, any specialty societies, or academic institutions). McKesson's current claim edit rationale (as provided through Navinet â€“ See â€œAttachment #2â€�), erroneously alludes to the CMS 'Global Days' policy, in support of the edit, but fails to take into account that:

A) CPT 96372 has a global period of "XXX", (i.e., the "Global concept does not apply" â€“ See: Attachments #3, #4, and #5); Per CMS, â€œCodes with the global surgery indicator of â€œXXXâ€� in the MFSDB can be paid separately without a modifier.â€� 
(Source: Medicare Claims Processing Manual, pg. 104 http://www.cms.gov/manuals/downloads/clm104c12.pdf); and,

B) (Although it's a moot point in this case), merely having a global surgical period of any length, does not automatically deem a service 'emergent', under CMS's global surgical package concept, in the first place. There is no justification for denying 99051, based on the consideration of any characteristics, of 96372.
(See: pages 90-94 of the Medicare Claims Processing Manual, for more information on CMS's definition of the Global Surgical Package.)

3. It is absolutely NOT appropriate to append modifier 25 to 99051, under any circumstances, period. The mere coincidence of 99051 and E/M codes, both starting with "99", is not an affirmation that 99051 is an E/M code. Attachments #6 and #7 indicate the location of CPT 99051 in the AMA CPT 2011 book. Please note on attachment #7, that 99051 is not found in the Evaluation and Management portion of the book; it is found in the chapter for â€œMedicine/Special Services, Procedures, and Reportsâ€�. This was not an accident; it is not an E/M code â€“ it's a special service, to be reported in addition to an E/M code. 

Evaluation and Management codes indicate that a professional service was rendered to evaluate and/or treat a patient's condition (or to assess their health status, in the absence of any complaints), as described under the CPT Guidelines for Evaluation and Management Services, under the heading, â€œClassification of Evaluation and Management Servicesâ€� (see: Attachment #8). 99051 in no way meets the definition of an E/M service; hence, the reason it is not classified as an E/M code, per CPT. 

Attachment #9 is an example of CPT codes that are E/M services; please take note of the starred portion, where once again, CPT took care, to clearly label the name of the respective chapter, at the top of each page. Just as Attachments #6 and #7, indicate that services listed under that chapter are â€œMedicine/Special Services, Procedures, and Reportsâ€�, attachment #9 distinctly labels services listed in that particular section, â€œEvaluation and Management/Office or Other Outpatient Servicesâ€�. 

I reiterate the point, because the distinction between E/M, and non-E/M services, is an important one to make; it is crucial to the definition of Modifier 25. (See attachment #10). CPT indicates repeatedly, that modifier 25 is ONLY for use with E/M services. Therefore, it is not appropriate to append modifier 25 to non-E/M services (such as those found in the â€œMedicine/Special Services, Procedures, and Reportsâ€�, section), to indicate that the procedure/service in question was distinct, or separately identifiable from other procedures or services, performed on the same date. 

CMS has taken the issue of provider-misuse of modifiers 25 and 59, extremely seriously, and has released several publications, regarding when it is appropriate to append those modifiers to services, and when it is not. 

It is not appropriate, or necessary, to append either modifier to codes that, by definition: 
 • do not bundle to one another, 
 • are not components of one another, 
 • do not generally describe the same type of service; or,
 • do not otherwise require some kind of supplemental designation, to identify them as being 'separate', from other services reported. 

Simply adding a modifier to override a payer-edit, is explicitly prohibited. It is certainly not appropriate to use modifier 25 in the aforementioned manner, for non-E/M services. 

Commercial payers have extraordinary flexibility in developing, and implementing their payment policies, which do not necessarily have to conform to CMS, or CPT guidelines; however, their coverage policies should be coherent, and should be supported by rationale that fundamentally meets some kind of nationally, or even regionally, accepted protocol. Policies should never require a provider to improperly code claims, in direct contrast to CPT and CMS guidelines; particularly under the guise of conforming to a non-existent, CMS rule. 

Due to the fact that we have several patients who have Aetna, in addition to Medicare, and/or other primary/supplemental payers (whose policies and protocol are based on logical, and widely-accepted rationale); and, due to the fact that it would be unreasonable to employ special billing practices that are both unnecessary, and grossly incorrect; our providers cannot feasibly follow Aetna's given advice for billing 99051 in conjunction with 96372, in its current form. 

Please reconsider your position on this issue; nothing about Aetna's policy supports its validity; it will not hold up to the even the lowest legally-recognized standards, upon appeal. Considering the volume of patients seen after hours, in many of our 50+ clinic locations, whose acute conditions may, occasionally, necessitate injection administrations; I can assure you that this will not be an isolated incident, and we will not relinquish a potentially-significant amount of revenue, on the whim of a baseless payer-policy, without exhausting every possible avenue of appeal, first. 

Should your determination remain unfavorable, please expect that I will file a complaint with the Texas Department of Insurance, as well as any other entity who may be interested, in Aetna's promotion of blatantly aberrant coding practices, immediately upon receiving the Adverse Determination Notification. You may contact me at the number below with any questions.

Thank you,

Brandi Tadlock, CPC, CPC-P, CPMA
Coding and Compliance Analyst
[Redacted]"


----------



## ajs

Whoohoo you go girl!!  This a a very well written, researched and thought-out appeal!!  I know I will be adding it to my file of informational documents in case I ever need some really good wording on an appeal letter!


----------



## btadlock1

ajs said:


> Whoohoo you go girl!!  This a a very well written, researched and thought-out appeal!!  I know I will be adding it to my file of informational documents in case I ever need some really good wording on an appeal letter!



Why, thank you! I'll let you know how it goes!


----------



## ollielooya

Brilliant and you can be sure I'll be incorporating elements of your appeal into my own personal odyssey.  Will be emailing you with followup to the course of action we've taken since February to get our line item paid as we've been informed there will be an official ruling this month.  Thanks so much.  Great to see a "neighbor" from my state reply to your post, too.  Working appeals is certainly an energizing experience, don't you agree?
 ---Suzanne E. Byrum CPC


----------



## btadlock1

ollielooya said:


> Brilliant and you can be sure I'll be incorporating elements of your appeal into my own personal odyssey.  Will be emailing you with followup to the course of action we've taken since February to get our line item paid as we've been informed there will be an official ruling this month.  Thanks so much.  Great to see a "neighbor" from my state reply to your post, too.  Working appeals is certainly an energizing experience, don't you agree?
> ---Suzanne E. Byrum CPC



My _favorite_! (They're my forte!)-  I actually requested this one when I heard about the denial from someone else. I love to debate, (especially when I think I can win), and I'm *MUCH* better at communicating in writing, than in any other form (English was always my best subject, even though it wasn't _ever_ my favorite...). There's nothing more gratifying about this job, than winning an appeal, to me - it's like a David and Goliath experience, especially on something like this - where the argument is with the_ whole _basis for the denial, and not just an individual claim issue - the fact that it's with a BIG payer, (and an even bigger software company behind them), just ups the ante that much more. If this turns out favorably, I'll be giddy as a school-girl for a solid month, I'm sure...

If I could do appeals like that one all day long, I'd be happy as a clam - that's part of the reason why I'd like to eventually become a consultant. Ahh, someday...


----------



## btadlock1

*(Boo-yah!)*



btadlock1 said:


> I *finally* finished editing my draft appeal (I'm going to delete the rough draft from my other post...), and I'm hoping I've succeeded in eviscerating Aetna and McKesson's claim-edit/coverage policy over this issue. It grew from a 2-page appeal with 6 pages of attachments, to 3 pages, with 10 attachments. The tone is pretty condescending, but I think that the absurdity of their rationale warrants it.
> 
> I've *never* seen a payer policy that is *so* incorrect, in *every possible way* - literally every sentence was _completely_ false, or just irrelevant to the point they're trying to make. It looks like they just threw together a bunch of phrases that sounded good, without checking to see if any of it made sense, first, and made it an 'official policy' - It's almost laughable, really.
> I'm determined to see this one through (and hoping this will be the only appeal I have to send) - McKesson provides scrubbing software for almost every major payer in the industry (if you've ever seen the words 'ClaimCheck" anywhere, that's who's behind it) - if they think that they can get away with just _making crap up _and passing it off as legitimate, they'll only be encouraged to do it more often. This needs to be nipped in the bud. I'm sharing the final copy, for anyone else who comes across this - please feel free to use any of it in your own appeals over this issue, if you want...(I also attached a copy here, because I'm not going back through here and re-adding all of the bold and italics I used for emphasis - it was kind of a lot...)
> 
> List of Attachments: (Copies of...)
> 1. Aetna's payment policy
> 2. McKesson's edit rationale
> 3. &  4. Printouts from the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, showing 96372's 'Global' identifier as "XXX"
> 5. Printout from Highmark Medicare showing that a global designation of "XXX" = "Global concept does not apply"
> 6. & 7. Pages 514 & 515 of the 2011 CPT book, with 99051 circled, and the title of the Chapter at the top of the page (obnoxiously) circled/starred.
> 8. Page 4 of the CPT book, with the "Classification of E/M Services" guideline circled
> 9. Page 11 of the CPT book, with the title at the top circled/starred
> 10. Page 549 of the CPT book, with the definition of modifier 25 circled, and every single mention of "E/M Service", underlined.
> (Sure, they _might_ have their own CPT book, but judging by their policy, I seriously doubt they know how to use it...)
> 
> "[Claim info redacted]
> 
> On the claim referenced above, we received a denial for CPT 99051, stating that it is incidental to another procedure performed on the same date. An Aetna provider services' representative advised our office that 99051 denied as, 'incidental to CPT 96372 from the same DOS', and referenced a reimbursement policy listed on Aetna's Secure Provider Website, Navinet, (https://www.aetna.com/contentMgt/pws/policies/afterhrs_weekend_cpt.html); and of which, I included a printout. (See: Attachment #1)
> 
> There are numerous, significant flaws with nearly every aspect of this policy, which Aetna has failed to address.
> 1. The denial is based on a custom edit, without any merit. This is not a CMS guideline. It is not an NCCI edit. In fact, CPT 99051 isn't listed anywhere on the NCCI edit tables, in conjunction with 96372 (or with any other service in the 90000-99999 code range, for that matter), either as being a component code, or a mutually-excluded service. An omission of the code pair in question, from the NCCI edit tables, should be taken as evidence, that CMS does not support Aetna's coding edit.
> 
> 2. Just because a procedure is â€œminorâ€�, does not mean that it has an inherent â€œemergency aspectâ€�, to it. In this encounter, the patient received injectable drugs to treat acute sinusitis. Although the condition was acute, and was treated after regular business hours, nothing about the condition, or its treatment, qualified the services provided, as being rendered on an â€œemergencyâ€� basis. Getting a standard antibiotic shot does not constitute an emergency, under any reasonable interpretation, of the definition of the word, â€œemergencyâ€�. The given explanation is certainly not consistent with the published views of any objective, and reputable outside-sources (eg, CMS, AMA, any specialty societies, or academic institutions). McKesson's current claim edit rationale (as provided through Navinet â€“ See â€œAttachment #2â€�), erroneously alludes to the CMS 'Global Days' policy, in support of the edit, but fails to take into account that:
> 
> A) CPT 96372 has a global period of "XXX", (i.e., the "Global concept does not apply" â€“ See: Attachments #3, #4, and #5); Per CMS, â€œCodes with the global surgery indicator of â€œXXXâ€� in the MFSDB can be paid separately without a modifier.â€�
> (Source: Medicare Claims Processing Manual, pg. 104 http://www.cms.gov/manuals/downloads/clm104c12.pdf); and,
> 
> B) (Although it's a moot point in this case), merely having a global surgical period of any length, does not automatically deem a service 'emergent', under CMS's global surgical package concept, in the first place. There is no justification for denying 99051, based on the consideration of any characteristics, of 96372.
> (See: pages 90-94 of the Medicare Claims Processing Manual, for more information on CMS's definition of the Global Surgical Package.)
> 
> 3. It is absolutely NOT appropriate to append modifier 25 to 99051, under any circumstances, period. The mere coincidence of 99051 and E/M codes, both starting with "99", is not an affirmation that 99051 is an E/M code. Attachments #6 and #7 indicate the location of CPT 99051 in the AMA CPT 2011 book. Please note on attachment #7, that 99051 is not found in the Evaluation and Management portion of the book; it is found in the chapter for â€œMedicine/Special Services, Procedures, and Reportsâ€�. This was not an accident; it is not an E/M code â€“ it's a special service, to be reported in addition to an E/M code.
> 
> Evaluation and Management codes indicate that a professional service was rendered to evaluate and/or treat a patient's condition (or to assess their health status, in the absence of any complaints), as described under the CPT Guidelines for Evaluation and Management Services, under the heading, â€œClassification of Evaluation and Management Servicesâ€� (see: Attachment #8). 99051 in no way meets the definition of an E/M service; hence, the reason it is not classified as an E/M code, per CPT.
> 
> Attachment #9 is an example of CPT codes that are E/M services; please take note of the starred portion, where once again, CPT took care, to clearly label the name of the respective chapter, at the top of each page. Just as Attachments #6 and #7, indicate that services listed under that chapter are â€œMedicine/Special Services, Procedures, and Reportsâ€�, attachment #9 distinctly labels services listed in that particular section, â€œEvaluation and Management/Office or Other Outpatient Servicesâ€�.
> 
> I reiterate the point, because the distinction between E/M, and non-E/M services, is an important one to make; it is crucial to the definition of Modifier 25. (See attachment #10). CPT indicates repeatedly, that modifier 25 is ONLY for use with E/M services. Therefore, it is not appropriate to append modifier 25 to non-E/M services (such as those found in the â€œMedicine/Special Services, Procedures, and Reportsâ€�, section), to indicate that the procedure/service in question was distinct, or separately identifiable from other procedures or services, performed on the same date.
> 
> CMS has taken the issue of provider-misuse of modifiers 25 and 59, extremely seriously, and has released several publications, regarding when it is appropriate to append those modifiers to services, and when it is not.
> 
> It is not appropriate, or necessary, to append either modifier to codes that, by definition:
> • do not bundle to one another,
> • are not components of one another,
> • do not generally describe the same type of service; or,
> • do not otherwise require some kind of supplemental designation, to identify them as being 'separate', from other services reported.
> 
> Simply adding a modifier to override a payer-edit, is explicitly prohibited. It is certainly not appropriate to use modifier 25 in the aforementioned manner, for non-E/M services.
> 
> Commercial payers have extraordinary flexibility in developing, and implementing their payment policies, which do not necessarily have to conform to CMS, or CPT guidelines; however, their coverage policies should be coherent, and should be supported by rationale that fundamentally meets some kind of nationally, or even regionally, accepted protocol. Policies should never require a provider to improperly code claims, in direct contrast to CPT and CMS guidelines; particularly under the guise of conforming to a non-existent, CMS rule.
> 
> Due to the fact that we have several patients who have Aetna, in addition to Medicare, and/or other primary/supplemental payers (whose policies and protocol are based on logical, and widely-accepted rationale); and, due to the fact that it would be unreasonable to employ special billing practices that are both unnecessary, and grossly incorrect; our providers cannot feasibly follow Aetna's given advice for billing 99051 in conjunction with 96372, in its current form.
> 
> Please reconsider your position on this issue; nothing about Aetna's policy supports its validity; it will not hold up to the even the lowest legally-recognized standards, upon appeal. Considering the volume of patients seen after hours, in many of our 50+ clinic locations, whose acute conditions may, occasionally, necessitate injection administrations; I can assure you that this will not be an isolated incident, and we will not relinquish a potentially-significant amount of revenue, on the whim of a baseless payer-policy, without exhausting every possible avenue of appeal, first.
> 
> Should your determination remain unfavorable, please expect that I will file a complaint with the Texas Department of Insurance, as well as any other entity who may be interested, in Aetna's promotion of blatantly aberrant coding practices, immediately upon receiving the Adverse Determination Notification. You may contact me at the number below with any questions.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Brandi Tadlock, CPC, CPC-P, CPMA
> Coding and Compliance Analyst
> [Redacted]"



PAID! 
Just got the check yesterday...Thanks for playing, Aetna. It was fun...


----------



## mitchellde

you get an A+ !  what a story this thread has told, it is one I try to tell everyday to my classes.  I think I will use this as a success example.


----------



## ollielooya

Brandi, your victory has come at just the right time.  Have been wondering how you fared on this appeal again one of the BIG ONES!  There is hope after all when countless man hours are put in crafting appeals.  You be the one.  Thanks for sharing.  Great lesson for all who are involved in the appeal process and an encouraging post!

---Suzanne E. Byrum


----------

