Skip to main content
Log in

Preventing Insurance Denials of Applied Behavior Analysis Treatment Based on Misuse of Medically Unlikely Edits (MUEs)

  • SI: Public Policy Advocacy by Behavior Analysts
  • Published:
Behavior Analysis in Practice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The importance of obtaining full insurance coverage of all medically necessary applied behavior analysis (ABA) services without artificial limits on scope, intensity, duration, or beneficiaries of treatment is at the core of autism health care advocacy. Although some limitations, such as dollar limits, treatment hour caps, or restrictions on location of services or symptoms treated are obvious, others are more nuanced. One such area meriting increased attention is insurers’ use of Medically Unlikely Edits (MUEs) in ways that can improperly limit care, reduce access, and undermine quality. Unfortunately, behavior analysts may unwittingly act as ambassadors for improper limits by treating MUEs as fixed limits on treatment and conscientiously counseling fellow practitioners to adhere to MUEs as if they cannot lawfully be exceeded. This is not surprising given that a number of payors appear to apply MUEs for ABA in exactly that erroneous fashion. In fact, MUEs arise from a program implemented by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to flag potential fraud and billing errors and are not and never were intended to limit medically necessary ABA. As ABA practitioners seek to preserve and expand funding that allows treatment in accordance with generally accepted standards of care, care must be taken to ensure that practical administrative procedures and billing requirements do not undermine these efforts. Correct utilization of MUEs should be on the agenda of payors, regulators, policymakers, and behavior analysts to safeguard access to ABA, free of improper limits that threaten to lower the standard of care.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed.

Notes

  1. The topic of medical necessity is nuanced and complex involving a variety of clinical and legal considerations and is beyond the scope of this article. Resources for those interested in learning more about this area include: Giardino and colleagues (2022), American Medical Association (n.d.), the Council for Autism Service Providers (2020), the Autism Legal Resource Center, and presentations and professional conferences (e.g., the Association for Professional Behavior Analysts, the Autism Law Summit, the CASP Conference).

  2. The American Medical Association’s time-based CPT codes for ABA use 15-min units.

  3. Some payor policies do indicate that the provider has a right to appeal a claims denial based on MUE, but even then, anecdotal information suggests that providers may not be being properly paid on appeal. An informal analysis of one national provider’s data involving hundreds of appeals across multiple national payors showed that no claims were paid on appeal, even though the provider had submitted uncontested data showing the services were (1) actually provided; (2) properly coded; and (3) medically necessary. This suggests that rigorous and comprehensive data collection and analysis of outcome data on appeals would benefit further advocacy in this area.

  4. See, for example, Texas Department of Insurance FAQ guidance to insurers, which states, “if you give a preauthorization, you cannot deny or reduce payment for the reasons of medical necessity or appropriateness, which would be a determination made by the utilization review staff during their clinical review” (Texas Department of Insurance, n.d.). See, also, American Medical Association (2021) Prior Authorization State Law Chart.

References

Download references

Funding

No funding was received in preparation of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel R. Unumb.

Ethics declarations

Competing Interests

The authors listed herein do not have competing interests associated with the submission of the article.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kornack, J., Unumb, D.R. & Williams, A.L. Preventing Insurance Denials of Applied Behavior Analysis Treatment Based on Misuse of Medically Unlikely Edits (MUEs). Behav Analysis Practice (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-023-00877-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-023-00877-y

Keywords

Navigation