Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act Non-Quantitative Treatment Limits Summary Report
Customize your policy alerts
Sign up for all Nevada Division of Insurance policy alerts
Know when Nevada Division of Insurance releases new policies or updates existing guidance.
Monitor payer policy activity
Summary report of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) non-quantitative treatment limits (NQTL) review prepared by the Nevada Division of Insurance, describing findings from carriers' 'as written' materials and 'in operation' data for compliance with parity requirements.
No material clinical or coverage changes in this revision.
Coverage and Non-Quantitative Treatment Limit Findings
inv-01: Utilization Management and Network Adequacy Findings
As-written findings and identified violations related to utilization management/medical management NQTLs.
Source: 'As Written Findings' — Utilization Management/Medical Management.
Evidence supports differential application leading to barriers to MH/SUD care.
Finding: additional barriers to obtaining MH/SUD services due to these disparities.
inv-02: NQTL domains with identified disparities
Findings indicating noncomparable application of NQTLs across the following domains:
Coding, Denial Indicators, and Reimbursement Comparisons
| Claims denied for 'No Prior Auth or Referral' and other medical management denial codes |
| 99213 | General office visit — Average Med/Surg $101.01 vs MH/SUD $98.68 (3% difference) |
| 99214 | General office visit — Average Med/Surg $145.05 vs MH/SUD $124.15 (16% difference) |
| 99215 | General office visit — Average Med/Surg $228.48 vs MH/SUD $179.80 (24% difference) |
| 90833 | MH/SUD-specific office visit CPT — referenced as extremely low reimbursement |
| 90834 | MH/SUD-specific office visit CPT — listed among MH/SUD codes |
| 90844 | MH/SUD-specific code referenced as low reimbursement |
Provider Impacts and Required Actions
Confirm PA requirements and reconcile inconsistent carrier documentation
Prior authorization (PA) and pre‑certification were documented inconsistently across carriers; analytics found PA applied and denied more frequently for MH/SUD than for Med/Surg, and carriers' 'as written' PA listings did not always match 'in operation' denials. Providers should expect that PA rules listed in member materials or COCs may differ from operational denials and verify PA requirements with the carrier before rendering services to avoid denials.
- Carriers used 'Prior Authorization' and 'Pre‑Certification' interchangeably across COCs and member materials, causing ambiguity and consumer confusion (denials occurred where materials referenced a different term).
- Multiple carriers left PA fields incomplete or provided only broad service categories in 'as‑written' responses, while claims data showed PA applied to specific service codes.
- Data analytics showed PA applied more frequently to MH/SUD benefits (example: 22%) than Med/Surg (example: 5%) and higher rates of PA‑related denials for MH/SUD (example: 16% vs 6%).
Verify network status and use urgent UM processes for MH/SUD when needed
Claims analysis identified Prior Authorization and Network Provider issues as top reasons for MH/SUD denials; MH/SUD UM records required Urgent decisions at higher rates than Med/Surg. Providers should proactively verify network status and PA at time of scheduling and pursue urgent UM pathways when clinically indicated to reduce denial risk and treatment delays.
- Claims data validated that denials for MH/SUD disproportionately cited Prior Authorization and Network Provider issues compared to Med/Surg.
- A significantly higher percentage of MH/SUD UM records required Urgent determinations, indicating limited MH/SUD provider availability and increased potential for expedited review needs.
- Use carrier claims/UM data checks to confirm whether a service is in‑network and whether PA is required before providing services to avoid post‑service denials.
Key Definitions and Legal References
OpenPayer is powered by Trek Health's payer performance platform. Trek continuously ingests, validates, and normalizes Transparency in Coverage data alongside payer policies and other commercial payer data to create a structured payer intelligence foundation. OpenPayer uses this foundation to deliver personalized search results, dynamically generated policy pages, and tailored policy monitoring based on each user's payers, specialties, billing codes, and areas of interest. The same intelligence powers broader payer performance workflows, including reimbursement benchmarking, contract evaluation, payer negotiations, and financial decision-making.