MHPAEA NQTL Summary Report (Prominence HealthFirst)
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
State-level analysis and summary of Prominence HealthFirst's compliance with the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) non-quantitative treatment limits (NQTLs), including 'as written' and 'in operation' reviews and data analytics of utilization management, network adequacy, credentialing, reimbursement, and claims for 2024/2025 reporting to the Nevada Division of Insurance.
No material clinical or coverage changes in this revision.
Comparability Findings and NQTL Violations
inv-01: Comparative Findings and Violations
The report evaluated comparability of NQTLs 'as written' and 'in operation' across multiple domains; several documentation deficiencies and operational disparities were identified.
ALL of the following
- Comparative Analysis Report lacked sufficient supporting documentation, including internal policies/procedures, referenced PA/CR/RR definitions, lists, guidelines, and evidentiary standards.
- Company failed to complete the Data Call tab listing specific codes that require prior authorization; the Covered Services list could not be reconciled to member‑facing documents (COC/SOB).
- Examination could not determine whether consumers, providers, and vendors are given consistent information about submission and handling of PA, CR, and RR due to missing supporting documentation.
ALL of the following
- 2% of UM records and 27% of claims records lacked a benefit type field, preventing data analytics on those records.
- No Urgent UM decisions and no RR records were submitted, despite 'as written' materials listing services requiring RR, indicating inconsistency between 'as written' and 'in operation'.
Violations identified in operation
- Utilization Management — higher inpatient concurrent review and reprocessing rates for MH/SUD compared to Med/Surg; data analytics confirmed violations under 45 CFR 146.136 for more stringent application to MH/SUD.
- Network Adequacy — a significantly higher percentage of MH/SUD UM cases involved out‑of‑network providers (43% vs 22%); overall OON rates higher for MH/SUD claims (12% vs 8%); reprocessed MH/SUD claims also had higher OON rates (9% vs 7%). These findings rise to violations under 45 CFR 146.136.
- Credentialing & Reimbursement — reimbursement rates consistently lower for MH/SUD services versus Med/Surg across common office visit codes (example: 99215 average Med/Surg $262.59 vs MH/SUD $208.71, a 23% difference), rising to a violation under 45 CFR 146.136.
- Claims & Prior Authorization — claims analysis validated significant disparities in denials attributable to Prior Authorization and network provider status for MH/SUD versus Med/Surg.
ALL of the following
- Only one MH/SUD denied claim was recorded in the claims universe and it was denied as out‑of‑network, consistent with the network adequacy concerns.
- Where 'in operation' analytics indicated violations (UM, Network, Credentialing/Reimbursement), claims data served as secondary validation of those disparities.
ALL of the following
- Findings constitute violations of 45 CFR 146.136 where 'as written' and 'in operation' processes, strategies, evidentiary standards, or other factors are not comparable and are applied more stringently to MH/SUD versus Med/Surg.
inv-02: NQTL findings and recommendations
Areas where the review found noncomparable application of NQTLs (rising to violations of 45 CFR 146.136):
Recommendations
- Division may pursue a targeted market conduct exam with file samples and administrative action, or present violations to the Company for explanation and corrective action, including reprocessing claims and remedying affected consumers/providers.
- Company should complete all required Data Call tabs (including Codes That Require PA), improve the Comparative Analysis Report with full supporting documentation, reconcile 'as written' materials to member‑facing documents (COC/SOB), and supply consistent evidentiary standards and medical management definitions for 'in operation' analyses.
Coding, CPTs, and Reimbursement Differences
| Company failed to complete the Data Call tab listing specific codes that require prior authorization. |
| 90833 | MH/SUD office visit procedure code noted as having extremely low reimbursement |
| 90844 | MH/SUD office visit procedure code noted as having extremely low reimbursement |
| 99213 | E&M code used by MH/SUD providers to obtain higher reimbursement |
| 99214 | E&M code used by MH/SUD providers to obtain higher reimbursement |
| 99215 | E&M code used by MH/SUD providers to obtain higher reimbursement |
Utilization Management, Prior Authorization, and Network Risks
UM (PA/CR/RR) reviewed 'as written' and 'in operation'; documentation/data gaps found
Prior Authorization (PA), Concurrent Review (CR), and Retrospective Review (RR) processes were reviewed both 'as written' and 'in operation'; the Company provided medical management guidelines and UM requirements but the review found documentation deficiencies and incomplete data universes preventing full analytic verification of comparability.
- Company submitted Comparative Analysis Reports and UM materials as the 'as written' documentation, including PA/CR/RR requirements and medical management guidelines.
- Raw 'in operation' data universes (Claims, Pharmacy, Utilization Management, Credentialing) were requested for 2024 to validate 'as written' statements.
- Examiners identified missing or incomplete supporting documentation and data fields (e.g., benefit type), limiting complete comparability analysis.
Higher CR and PA reprocessing rates for MH/SUD vs Med/Surg
Data analytics showed higher concurrent review rates for inpatient MH/SUD versus Med/Surg and higher rates of PA reprocessing for MH/SUD claims, indicating inconsistent application of UM processes across classifications.
- Inpatient CR rate: 3% for Med/Surg vs 4% for inpatient MH/SUD.
- Percent of claims with PA requiring reprocessing: 8% for Med/Surg vs 12% for MH/SUD.
- These disparities were identified as violations of 45 CFR 146.136 because 'as written' and 'in operation' practices were not comparable and were applied more stringently to MH/SUD.
Claims show higher PA-related denials for MH/SUD
Claims analysis validated significant disparities in denials attributable to Prior Authorization and network provider status for MH/SUD claims compared to Med/Surg claims.
- Claims were used as secondary verification and showed significant disparities in denials due to Prior Authorization for MH/SUD versus Med/Surg.
- Claims payment data confirmed 'in operation' behaviors that align with UM, network adequacy, and reimbursement disparities.
Network-related denial risk elevated for MH/SUD due to higher OON usage
A substantially higher proportion of MH/SUD UM cases and overall MH/SUD claims involved out-of-network (OON) providers, increasing denial risk tied to network status and indicating a network adequacy NQTL violation.
- UM cases involving OON providers: 22% for Med/Surg vs 43% for MH/SUD.
- Overall OON claim rates: 8% for Med/Surg vs 12% for MH/SUD.
- Reprocessed claim OON rates: 7% for Med/Surg vs 9% for MH/SUD.
- The single recorded MH/SUD denied claim was denied as OON.
Key Terms and Regulatory 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.