MHPAEA NQTL Summary Report — Aetna Life Insurance Company
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-mandated summary of Aetna Life Insurance Company's compliance with the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) non-quantitative treatment limits (NQTLs), and the Division's findings about as-written and in-operation practices affecting enrollees in Nevada-regulated plans.
No material clinical or coverage changes in this revision.
Findings on Non-Quantitative Treatment Limits (NQTLs)
inv-01: NQTL findings and violations
Findings and violations identified in the review of the Company's as‑written documentation and in‑operation data for NQTLs across utilization management, network adequacy, and credentialing/reimbursement.
ALL of the following
- Certificates of Coverage (COC) contained excessive variable bracketing for MH/SUD and Behavioral Health but not for Med/Surg, preventing reconciliation of covered services lists to supporting documentation.
- COC used alternative terminology: 'Precertification' instead of 'Prior Authorization', 'Concurrent Care Claim Extension' instead of 'Concurrent Review', and 'Post‑Service Claim review' instead of 'Retrospective Review'.
- Consumers, providers, and vendors were not given consistent and clear information about how PA, CR, and RR reviews are submitted and handled.
ALL of the following
- UM and claims universes contained significant deficiencies, including blank prior authorization data fields that limited analytic capability and review of PAs and denied claims.
ALL of the following
- MH/SUD UM cases had a substantially higher out‑of‑network rate: 32% OON for MH/SUD UM cases versus 3% OON for Med/Surg UM cases.
- MH/SUD UM cases required urgent decisions at a higher rate: 30% for MH/SUD versus 18% for Med/Surg.
- MH/SUD inpatient UM cases required concurrent review more frequently: 32% for MH/SUD inpatient UM versus 18% for Med/Surg inpatient UM.
- These operational disparities were determined to rise to the level of violations of 45 CFR 146.136 because MH/SUD processes and application of NQTLs for UM are not comparable to, and are applied more stringently than, Med/Surg.
Regulatory standard
ALL of the following
- Claims composition showed lower in‑network proportions for MH/SUD (91% INN / 9% OON) compared to Med/Surg (97% INN / 3% OON), indicating network adequacy issues for MH/SUD services.
- Higher urgent decision rates for MH/SUD (30% vs 18%) indicate provider shortages and reduced routine access to MH/SUD care, constituting an NQTL violation under 45 CFR 146.136.
ALL of the following
- These credentialing and reimbursement disparities were determined to be violations of 45 CFR 146.136 because the application of NQTLs for credentialing and reimbursement is not comparable to Med/Surg.
Regulatory standard
ALL of the following
- Because of the documented disparities and violations, there are additional barriers to obtaining MH/SUD services and treatments compared to Med/Surg services, including network access problems and inconsistent application of UM processes.
inv-02: NQTL findings and recommended actions
Findings demonstrating non‑comparable application of NQTLs between MH/SUD and medical/surgical benefits across multiple domains, and recommended next steps.
ALL of the following
- MH/SUD had a higher out‑of‑network claim share (9% OON with 91% INN) compared to Med/Surg (3% OON with 97% INN); MH/SUD comprised ~5% of claims volume.
- Higher urgent UM decision rates for MH/SUD (30% vs 18%) indicate shortages of MH/SUD providers and more stringent application of NQTLs for network adequacy.
ALL of the following
- Low reimbursement for MH/SUD procedure codes (90833, 90844) encouraged billing under E&M codes, but MH/SUD providers nonetheless received lower average payments for the same E&M codes compared to Med/Surg.
ALL of the following
- Claims data exhibited significant deficiencies and irregularities, including blank fields for all prior authorization required information, which limited analytics on PAs and denied claims and impeded full assessment of NQTL application.
Codes, Data Period, and Reimbursement Findings
| No specific CPT/ICD/NDC codes provided in this portion of the report. |
| 99213 | Average Med/Surg Reimbursement Rate = $105.02; Average MH/SUD Reimbursement Rate = $100.54; % difference = 4% |
| 99214 | Average Med/Surg Reimbursement Rate = $151.43; Average MH/SUD Reimbursement Rate = $126.32; % difference = 18% |
| 99215 | Average Med/Surg Reimbursement Rate = $235.63; Average MH/SUD Reimbursement Rate = $172.42; % difference = 31% |
| 90833 | MH/SUD office visit procedure code noted as extremely low reimbursement |
| 90844 | MH/SUD office visit procedure code noted as extremely low reimbursement |
| 99213/99214/99215 (E&M) | MH/SUD providers frequently billing E&M codes to obtain higher reimbursement |
Operational Impacts and Provider-Facing Issues
Review PA/CR/RR UM processes for comparability
Report reviews prior authorization (PA), concurrent review (CR), and retrospective/post-service review (RR) processes to assess whether UM/medical management procedures are applied comparably between MH/SUD and medical/surgical benefits and identifies deficiencies in documentation and application that constitute NQTL violations.
- Assess comparability of PA, CR, and RR processes between MH/SUD and Med/Surg.
- Document deficiencies in information or documentation presented for UM decisions.
- Flag operational differences that may constitute 45 CFR 146.136 NQTL violations (e.g., higher OON, urgent, or CR rates for MH/SUD).
Inconsistent terminology and submission handling in COCs
Certificates of Coverage use alternative terminology (Precertification, Concurrent Care Claim Extension, Post-Service Claim review) and inconsistent submission/handling guidance for PA/CR/RR, creating potential confusion and mismatches between as‑written rules and operational handling for consumers, providers, and vendors.
- COC refers to Precertification instead of Prior Authorization.
- COC uses Concurrent Care Claim Extension instead of Concurrent Review.
- COC uses Post-Service Claim review instead of Retrospective Review.
- Consumers, providers, and vendors are not given consistent clear information about submission and handling of PA/CR/RR.
Data deficiencies limited denial and PA analytics
Blank or missing fields in UM and claims universes limited the ability to analyze prior authorizations and denials and revealed operational NQTL violations in application of utilization management for MH/SUD versus Med/Surg.
- Significant data deficiencies in UM and claims files (blank PA fields) limited analytic capability.
- Operational analytics identified higher OON rates, urgent decision rates, and CR rates for MH/SUD indicating non-comparable application of UM.
Blank PA fields in claims data limit PA/denial analysis
Claims data contained significant deficiencies and irregularities, including blank fields for all prior authorization required information, which limited analysis of prior authorizations and denied claims and impeded verification of PA-related actions.
- Blank data fields for all PA required information in claims universe.
- Limited ability to perform analytics regarding PAs and denied claims due to missing PA metadata.
Key Terms
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.