Hey there, We’re Shivang & Tania. Each week, we write in plain English (and some sass) about how health insurance works, why claims get denied, and how patients and healthcare teams can get paid or reimbursed. If you’re new here, we recommend you start with RCM 101: How Healthcare Gets Paid, Eventually, Maybe

Patients with similar symptoms can need the same MRI and still face very different reimbursement requirements. Their coverage, location and applicable state and federal laws can change whether approval is needed, who reviews the request, which clinical evidence must be supplied and where the scan can happen. Payment then depends on the applicable benefits, contracts and claim requirements. The office has to connect those rules with the particular patient’s case; the test name and insurance-company name cannot supply the whole answer.

Biscuit’s back pain has been making ordinary days at Juniper Lane Design uncomfortable. Getting up from his desk can set it off, and the pain travels down a leg. He has followed eight weeks of clinician-directed treatment, but the problem has not settled.

At his follow-up, Dr. Singh reassesses him and considers whether a procedure could help. An MRI of his lower spine, without contrast, will help decide what further care makes sense. Biscuit leaves with the order and a question about arranging it.

On his way out, he runs into Juno, his friend who works at Larkspur Freight. She has just had her own follow-up. Her back pain also travels down a leg and has continued despite eight weeks of treatment. After reviewing her progress, Dr. Singh has ordered the same type of MRI to help choose the next treatment.

“Apparently not,” Juno says. “I was hoping for something more interesting to talk about this week.”

Biscuit suggests coffee on Friday, once they have both had a chance to sort out their appointments. Juno agrees.

Eleanor, another patient of Dr. Singh’s, joins them as they discuss where to meet. Her back pain has also been traveling down a leg despite eight weeks of treatment. Dr. Singh has ordered an MRI to help decide whether a procedure might help her.

“I could do with a conversation that isn’t an appointment,” she says when Juno mentions Friday.

Biscuit names a coffee shop near the clinic. Eleanor knows it, and Juno invites her along. They agree to meet there later in the week.

Before then, Sage has work to do. She coordinates insurance requests for Dr. Singh’s office and has each patient’s order and clinical record. Over the next few days, she checks the requirements and calls each patient separately with an update.

These are fictional cases set in Texas. Eight weeks describes these histories, not a universal waiting rule for imaging. BHC’s benefits, clinical criteria, review channels and networks are invented for the story; the cited laws are real. Eleanor’s earlier story used Original Medicare; this case illustrates a Medicare Advantage HMO. Care and urgency require individual assessment.

Biscuit and Juno get to the coffee shop first. They find a table and wave Eleanor over when she arrives. Once they’ve ordered, Eleanor asks if either of them has been able to arrange a scan.

“Sage sent my order to the center with Dr. Singh’s exemption details,” he says. “She said they don’t need an approval request.”

“Mine does,” Juno says. “My plan uses another company to review MRI requests. Sage sent them my records. I’m still waiting.”

“Sage had to find me another center,” Eleanor adds. “The one I wanted isn’t in my plan’s network. My request is waiting for a decision, too.”

They have been given the same type of MRI order after comparable treatment histories. Yet Biscuit can contact the original center to arrange his scan, Juno is waiting for an outside reviewer, and Eleanor has a different center identified while her plan reviews the request.

The differences started when Sage checked their coverage. She needed to establish whether each person was enrolled for the proposed date, whether the MRI was included in their benefits, which clinical conditions applied and whether advance approval was required. The answers determined what she did with each order.

Insurance also changed the work in Biscuit’s genetic-test comparison. In these MRI cases, those differences lead to specific handoffs: information to a center, a clinical request to an outside company and a request through Medicare Advantage.

Biscuit’s employer, Juniper Lane Design, buys a fully insured BHC Commercial plan. That means BHC takes on the financial risk for covered claims. His particular coverage is regulated by Texas.

Sage confirms that Biscuit is enrolled for the proposed scan date and that his outpatient-imaging benefit includes the ordered MRI. The center he wants to use participates in his plan’s network. So does the professional who will read the images.

BHC ordinarily requires prior authorization for this MRI—approval before the scan. Before preparing a request, though, Sage checks a notice in Dr. Singh’s files.

Dr. Singh holds a valid Texas preauthorization exemption for this particular service and insurer. Sage matches the clinician, service, coverage and proposed date to the notice. The exemption applies to Biscuit’s order.

Because the exemption applies, Sage sends the order and exemption information to the center instead of submitting a clinical authorization request. She includes Dr. Singh’s name and National Provider Identifier, or NPI, for the claim.

The center will perform the scan, so why does it need the ordering clinician’s exemption details? The Texas regulator explains that an ordering clinician can hold the exemption even when another provider delivers the service. The center does not need to qualify separately for care subject to that exemption. It does need the relevant provider information.

The law also protects more than the office’s time. It restricts later medical-necessity or appropriateness denials and payment reductions for exempt services, subject to specified exceptions. The exemption is therefore more than permission to skip an application. Texas Insurance Code §4201.659

Sage confirms that the center has the order and exemption information, then calls Biscuit. Biscuit can contact the center to arrange the scan.

That gives him the update he brings to coffee. Juno’s update comes from a different set of instructions.

Juno can use the proposed imaging center, too. Sage has confirmed her enrollment, MRI benefit and network conditions under her own plan. The difference appears when Sage checks the approval requirement.

Juno’s employer, Larkspur Freight, has a self-funded plan: the employer funds the benefits, while BHC administers them. Biscuit and Juno’s BHC cards show the same company name, but BHC insures Biscuit’s benefits and administers Juno’s.

Juno also has coverage through her spouse. Her own work plan processes first, so Sage prepares this request under that primary coverage. Her spouse’s coverage has its own terms.

Her private-employer plan is governed by ERISA, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, a federal benefits law. The Texas exemption Sage used for Biscuit does not extend to this self-funded coverage.

Sage still needs to read Juno’s terms. Being self-funded does not, by itself, establish that an MRI requires authorization. This fictional plan requires approval and offers no voluntary equivalent exemption.

It also uses an outside company to review advanced-imaging requests on its behalf. Sage finds the submission instructions in the plan documents. The order and supporting records need to reach that review team. Sending only the order to the center would leave the required review undone.

When Juno asks whether her plan needs to approve the scan first, Sage explains the arrangement.

“Yes,” she says. “I’ll send your records to the company that handles these requests for your plan. I’ll let you know where it stands.”

Before submitting, Sage checks what the clinical policy requires. For this fictional plan, MRI is supported when symptoms persist despite clinician-directed treatment, an intervention is being considered, and the images will guide that decision.

Juno’s records address those questions. The dated notes show the treatment she has tried and the symptoms that have continued. Dr. Singh’s reassessment explains the intervention being considered and how the MRI will help choose further care.

Sage sends the request and supporting records, then saves the receipt. For this nonurgent pre-service claim, ERISA’s rules generally require an initial decision as soon as medical circumstances require, no later than 15 calendar days after receipt. Permitted extensions have conditions. Department of Labor guidance

She gives Juno the pending status, names the team that has the request and agrees on an update date. Juno’s preferred center can stay, but the approval request is still pending.

Before Sage prepares Eleanor’s request, she needs to settle the location. Eleanor has asked for the nearby imaging center.

Eleanor is 65 or older and qualifies for Medicare based on age. In this story, she receives her benefits through a BHC Medicare Advantage (MA) plan. Medicare Advantage provides Medicare benefits through a Medicare-approved private plan. Hers is an HMO, or Health Maintenance Organization, with its own provider network.

During their discussion, Eleanor asks Sage, “Can I have my scan there?”

Sage checks the HMO’s network. That center does not participate in Eleanor’s particular product. Its participation in Biscuit’s or Juno’s network cannot establish its status in hers.

For Eleanor’s planned, non-urgent scan, Sage finds a participating center under the HMO’s in-network benefit. She also checks the professional who will read the images—the radiologist. Finding the facility in network does not complete both checks. An exception or another out-of-network route would require its own assessment. Medicare explains HMO network rules.

Sage confirms Eleanor’s active enrollment, imaging benefit and provider conditions for the proposed date. The authorization request can now identify the participating center where the scan is proposed to happen.

Choosing that center resolves one part of Eleanor’s arrangements. Sage also has to prepare the clinical request under Medicare Advantage’s requirements.

The national and local Medicare coverage rules in Eleanor’s earlier story remain relevant to basic benefits in MA. The plan must consider her medical history, clinician recommendations and clinical notes. Where Medicare’s criteria are not fully established, it may use additional clinical criteria within federal limits, including evidence and public-access requirements. It cannot simply replace applicable Medicare requirements with whatever policy it prefers. 42 CFR §422.101

The national MRI policy requires reasonable-and-necessary use. BHC must also follow any applicable local Medicare coverage conditions.

For this example, the fictional MA policy supports MRI for persistent symptoms despite clinician-directed treatment when an intervention is being considered and the images will guide the decision. Eleanor’s records show those points. Her treatment has not resolved her symptoms, Dr. Singh is considering further intervention, and the images will help decide the next care step.

American College of Radiology guidance supports this imaging scenario. It helps explain the clinical recommendation; it is not itself the plan’s coverage policy. Similar clinical reasoning across the patients does not establish that the same insurance instructions govern their cases.

Sage submits through BHC’s MA process. For this nonurgent medical-service authorization, the initial decision limit is generally seven calendar days after receipt, sooner if Eleanor’s condition requires it. Certain extensions can apply. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) explains the current requirements.

Sage gives Eleanor the new center’s details, explains that the request is pending and tells her when to expect an update. She records the next follow-up. The office reminder does not extend the plan’s legal decision deadline.

The next time they meet for coffee, all three have had their scans. Their insurance claims have been processed, too. Biscuit has brought his statement.

“I was only going to ask where you booked yours,” he says.

“And now you’ve brought paperwork to coffee,” Juno says. “We need a hobby.”

Biscuit booked at his original center. Sage had verified that Dr. Singh’s exemption applied and sent the ordering clinician’s details with the order. The center performed the scan and carried the exemption information onto the claim. BHC processed it under his benefits and the center’s contract, paying $400 and assigning $100 to Biscuit.

Juno’s order took another route. The outside review team approved her request after reviewing the clinical records Sage submitted. Sage passed the approval details to the original center and checked that they matched the service, provider, site and scheduled date. Juno had her scan there. Her primary plan paid $480; her spouse’s plan then paid another $60 under its own coordination-of-benefits terms. Her final share was $60.

Eleanor had her scan at the participating center Sage found, with a participating radiologist reading the images. BHC’s MA plan approved the request for that site after reviewing her records. The center used those authorization details on the claim. The plan paid $560 and assigned $140 to Eleanor.

“So mine needed a different address,” Eleanor says. “Juno’s needed a reviewer. Yours needed Dr. Singh’s exemption details.”

“Mine also needed me to answer Sage’s call,” Biscuit says. “Apparently staring at the phone wasn’t helping.”

Those are completed outcomes in our fictional story. The plan terms and dollar amounts below are invented, not quotes from a real insurer or fee schedule.

Each center billed the scan and radiologist’s reading together. All three patients had met their primary-plan deductibles, and their primary benefits assigned 20% coinsurance. None had reached the point where an out-of-pocket maximum would reduce that share.

The allowed amount is the in-network contract price used to calculate the primary payment and patient share. Coinsurance is the percentage assigned to the patient. Juno’s secondary plan then processed the remaining amount under its own fictional benefits and coordination rules.

Juno’s primary plan initially assigned $120 to her. Her secondary plan paid $60 of that amount, leaving $60 for her to pay. Two plans helped with this bill; they did not make it disappear. The figures above show plan payments already made and the final patient balances, not money the centers have already collected from the patients.

The different prices came from our invented contracts and benefits. Biscuit’s exemption changed the authorization work; it did not set his $500 contract price. Eleanor’s network change determined where she could use the HMO’s in-network benefit; it does not mean changing centers always increases or decreases a price. Each claim still had to meet the applicable payment requirements.

Their coverage and the state and federal rules that applied to it changed what the office had to do before the scans and what information had to reach billing afterward.

For Biscuit, Sage verified a service-specific exemption and sent the right details to the center. For Juno, she assembled the clinical evidence for the plan’s review team, tracked the decision and carried the approval into the claim. For Eleanor, she first had to find a participating center and radiologist, then obtain approval for that arrangement. Their contract and benefit terms produced different payments after those steps were complete.

All three cases were in Texas. Geography can add another difference, but the relevant location depends on the rule. Under Original Medicare’s physician fee schedule, payment locality generally follows where the service is furnished; Dallas and Harris counties are separate payment localities. A home address alone does not determine every reimbursement requirement, and that fee schedule did not set Eleanor’s fictional MA price.

For a healthcare team, the lesson is practical: use the previous case to remember what to check, then verify the answer for the patient in front of you. A familiar test or insurer’s logo is a useful starting point. Sage still needs the particular product, funding arrangement, service location, date and applicable rules before she can tell anyone what happens next.

Start with an upcoming, non-urgent order. Have the person handling it explain which coverage applies, what benefit and clinical conditions must be met, whether approval or an exemption applies, and where the request belongs. Keep the supporting sources with that explanation so the next colleague can follow it.

Then try changing one fact in a fictional copy of the case: the funding arrangement, the place of service or the line of business. Ask which requirements need rechecking and which remain supported. Finish with a handoff that names the next action, its owner and when the patient will hear back. That is far more useful than “insurance is handling it,” a phrase that has never once told anyone whom to call.

Which factor has sent a familiar test through a completely different process in your office? Hit reply and tell us. Please leave out patient details, medical records and identifying information.

Your friend’s experience can help you think of questions. It cannot confirm what your own plan will require, even if you both have an MRI order and the same insurance-company name on your cards.

Sage could not get the next step from the words “lumbar MRI.” She had to connect each patient’s circumstances with the rules that applied to that case, then get the right information to the people doing the work. Many doctors, billing teams and labs share the same struggle of piecing together the right reimbursement pathways every single day.

At Converus, we organize current reimbursement requirements and their sources around the patient’s case, plan and test. We connect that information with customers’ existing systems so doctors, market-access and billing teams can identify the applicable requirements and the steps for that case. That is the problem these three MRI orders bring into view: the clinical request may look familiar, while the work needed to get it reimbursed changes with the patient.

BHC’s plan-specific conditions, contractor, channels and network status are teaching assumptions, not descriptions of a real insurer. BHC is fictional and only used to illustrate this example and not representative of a real insurer.

Disclaimer: The content published by preimbursed (the "Newsletter") is provided for general informational and educational purposes only and reflects the opinions and commentary of the author. It does not constitute, and should not be relied upon as, medical, legal, financial, tax, insurance, or other professional advice. No physician-patient, attorney-client, fiduciary, or other professional relationship is created by reading the Newsletter or by corresponding with the author. The Newsletter is not a substitute for individualized advice from a qualified professional. Before making any healthcare, coverage, insurance, financial, or legal decision, you should consult your own physician, attorney, benefits administrator, or other licensed advisor and review your specific plan documents, policies, and applicable law. The author is not responsible for any action taken or not taken in reliance on the content herein, and you assume full responsibility for your use of the information provided. Information in the Newsletter is believed to be accurate as of the date of publication and is drawn from the sources cited. Laws, regulations, coverage rules, corporate ownership, market data, and other facts change frequently and may have changed since publication. Certain statements describe pending, recently enacted, or phased-in legal and regulatory changes whose scope, interpretation, and effective dates may shift. The author makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or reliability of any content, and disclaims all liability for any errors or omissions to the fullest extent permitted by law. References to any company, organization, product, government program, or individual are made solely for purposes of news reporting, commentary, analysis, and criticism, and do not imply any endorsement, sponsorship, affiliation, or partnership. All trademarks, service marks, and trade names are the property of their respective owners and are used only for identification and descriptive purposes. Where a named party disputes a characterization or finding, the Newsletter notes that dispute. Statements concerning identified companies reflect cited reporting and the author's opinion and analysis of matters of public concern. Certain characters, organizations, and scenarios in the Newsletter, including but not limited to Biscuit, Dr. Singh, and composite payer and provider names, are fictional and used for illustration. Any resemblance to actual persons or entities is coincidental.

Disclosure: The authors are the co-founders of Converus.ai, a company that organizes payer policy information for healthcare providers, and therefore has a commercial interest in the subject matter discussed. References to Converus.ai are made only where relevant and are not paid placements. To the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, the author and preimbursed disclaim all warranties and shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, or other damages arising out of or in connection with your use of, or reliance on, the Newsletter.