Three out of four Medicare Advantage denials that seniors actually challenged were reversed by the plans themselves, according to federal audit data, yet the vast majority of denied claims are never appealed at all. The gap between those favorable odds and the low number of appeals filed each year has left hundreds of thousands of beneficiaries without services or payments they were likely owed. A new federal audit of skilled-nursing facility denials puts the overturn rate even higher, at 95 percent, sharpening questions about whether the appeal process itself discourages the people it was designed to protect.
Why high overturn rates have not translated into more appeals
The HHS Office of Inspector General found that Medicare Advantage organizations overturned about 75 percent of appealed preauthorization and payment denials during 2014 through 2016, reversing roughly 216,000 denials per year. Those numbers represent only the fraction of cases that made it past the first barrier: filing a formal appeal. The structure of the process, rather than the strength of individual claims, appears to function as the primary filter keeping volumes low.
Medicare Advantage appeals follow a multi-level reconsideration system that begins with a Level 1 plan review, advances to a Level 2 assessment by an independent review entity, and can continue to a Level 3 hearing before an administrative law judge. Each level carries its own 60-day filing window, documentation requirements, and waiting period. For a senior recovering from surgery or managing a chronic condition, tracking those deadlines and assembling the right paperwork can be overwhelming enough to end the process before it starts.
An enrollee, a representative, or a physician can file a Level 1 reconsideration on behalf of the beneficiary. But no publicly available federal data breaks down how often physicians or patient advocates step in versus how often seniors attempt to handle the process alone. That information gap makes it difficult to measure whether the system’s complexity is the main deterrent or whether other factors, such as lack of awareness that an appeal is even possible, play a larger role.
Timing also works against beneficiaries. Many denials involve services that are time-sensitive, such as post-acute rehabilitation or ongoing skilled therapies. Even when expedited review is available, beneficiaries may not understand how to request it or may assume that a denial is final. By the time they learn that an appeal could succeed, the practical window to receive the service has closed, reducing the incentive to take on paperwork for a benefit they can no longer use.
Plans, for their part, have little direct reason to encourage more challenges. While federal rules require clear notice of appeal rights, those notices often arrive in dense, legalistic language that can be hard to parse. Advocates say that without hands-on assistance from family members, social workers, or legal aid organizations, many beneficiaries simply set the letters aside.
Federal audits reveal a pattern of questionable initial denials
The OIG’s more recent audit of skilled-nursing facility admissions found that Medicare Advantage organizations denied 12 percent of prior authorization requests for SNF admission. When enrollees or their representatives challenged those denials, plans overturned 95 percent of appealed SNF admission denials in the enrollee’s favor. A reversal rate that high raises direct concerns about the quality of the original coverage decisions. If nearly every challenged denial turns out to be wrong, the initial review process is either applying criteria too aggressively or failing to account for clinical context that becomes obvious on a second look.
Although auditors did not conclude that every denial was inappropriate, the pattern suggests that some plans may be using prior authorization as a blunt cost-control tool. In the skilled-nursing setting, even short delays can have concrete consequences: patients may be discharged home without adequate support, face avoidable rehospitalizations, or forgo therapy that could preserve their independence.
CMS has taken steps to address the transparency side of this problem. The agency’s interoperability and prior authorization final rule, CMS-0057-F, requires plans to provide specific reasons for prior authorization decisions and to make those explanations available electronically to providers. By clarifying why a claim was denied, regulators hope to reduce unnecessary back-and-forth and make it easier for clinicians to decide whether an appeal is warranted.
However, clearer denial notices alone are unlikely to close the gap between high overturn rates and low appeal volumes. Beneficiaries still must recognize that they have the right to challenge a decision, understand the deadlines, and secure whatever medical records or supporting letters are needed. For older adults with limited digital literacy or language barriers, each of those steps can be formidable.
What stronger oversight and support could look like
Policy experts have proposed several ways to better align initial determinations with what ultimately happens on appeal. One option is to require plans with unusually high overturn rates to conduct internal reviews of their prior authorization criteria and staff training, reporting back to CMS on corrective actions. Another is to expand targeted audits in service categories where denials are frequently reversed, such as post-acute care.
On the beneficiary side, advocates point to the need for more proactive outreach. State Health Insurance Assistance Programs and legal aid organizations already help some enrollees navigate appeals, but funding and staffing are limited. Embedding appeal counselors in hospitals and nursing facilities, where many denials surface, could give patients real-time guidance before they give up on coverage they are entitled to receive.
Ultimately, the federal findings point to a system in which the people least able to navigate bureaucracy bear the highest risk of going without needed care. As long as most denials go unchallenged while most challenges succeed, the appeal ladder will function less as a safeguard and more as a barrier standing between Medicare Advantage enrollees and the benefits they were promised.
Free for readers: The free Retirement Shield newsletter sends plain-English help keeping more of your money in retirement — the scams to dodge, the benefits you’re owed, and what’s changing with Social Security and Medicare, a couple times a week. Get the free newsletter.
