Guide

The peer-to-peer: preparing for the fifteen minutes that decide it

Summary

A peer-to-peer review is a scheduled phone call between the treating clinician and a physician reviewer employed by the payer, and it is won or lost in the preparation beforehand, not in the call itself. The strongest calls arrive with the specific denial reason already identified, the payer's own published coverage criteria already read, and the chart note that answers that exact criterion already open on the desk.

By Gale Editorial · Updated 2026-07-26. Every figure cited to a dated source. How we write.

What is a peer-to-peer review, and who actually calls?

A peer-to-peer review is a scheduled phone conversation between the treating clinician, or someone speaking directly for their clinical reasoning, and a physician or other qualified reviewer employed by the payer — not a biller, not a claims representative. It exists specifically because some coverage decisions, particularly prior-authorization and medical-necessity denials, are considered decisions one clinician should be able to explain to another.

Because the call is peer-to-peer by design, sending anyone other than the treating clinician, or someone who can speak with genuine clinical authority about that specific patient, tends to produce a shorter and less useful conversation than the process is built for. Blocking a realistic slot on the clinician's own calendar, rather than squeezing the call between patients, is a small scheduling change that measurably improves how the conversation goes.

The single biggest predictor of a good call: reading the policy first

The single most useful thing to do before any peer-to-peer call is read the payer's own published coverage policy for the specific service in dispute, not a general sense of what usually gets approved. Aetna, for one named example, publishes its Clinical Policy Bulletins stating exactly what it will and will not consider medically necessary for a given service 1Ref 1Aetna (2026).Aetna Clinical Policy Bulletins.That Aetna publishes its medical and reimbursement policies on its provider portal — cited only as Aetna's own named example of a payer stating its coverage criteria in writing, never as what all payers do..

A call built around answering that specific, published criterion — this patient met element two, documented on this date, in this note — is a fundamentally different conversation than a call built around a general clinical argument the reviewer has heard a hundred times. Your contract with that specific payer controls, so the policy read before the call has to be that payer's own, not a competitor's.

What to have open before the phone rings

A short, specific packet beats a full chart every time: the denial letter or remittance line with the exact reason code, the payer's own coverage policy for the disputed service, and the one or two notes that most directly answer the criterion the denial rests on.

The Claim Adjustment Reason Code and its paired Remittance Advice Remark Code, both standard X12 lists, are worth reading before the call rather than during it, since they name the specific category of denial and the added detail behind it — arriving able to state the exact reason in the payer's own terms is a different call than arriving to ask generally why the service was denied 2Ref 2X12 (2026).Claim Adjustment Reason Codes.That CARCs are the standard code list explaining why a claim or service line was paid differently than billed, used here to read the denial reason before the call.3Ref 3X12 (2026).Remittance Advice Remark Codes.That RARCs supply the supplemental detail beyond the CARC on a remittance, maintained by X12 as a public list, used here to arrive at the call with the specific denial detail rather than a general sense of it..

Confirming the note itself will hold up

Before citing a note as the evidence that resolves the call, it is worth confirming the note itself is properly authenticated — signed, dated, and attributable to the treating clinician — since an unsigned or improperly attested note is a documentation problem a reviewer can flag on its own, separate from the clinical question.

Medicare's own signature-requirement guidance describes what counts as a valid signature and how attestation can cure a note that is missing one, and the same discipline is worth applying to any payer's chart, not just a Medicare one, before that note becomes the centerpiece of a peer-to-peer argument 4Ref 4Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (2023).Complying with Medicare Signature Requirements.That Medicare requires services to be authenticated by a valid signature and that attestation can cure a note missing one, used here as the discipline for confirming a note is properly authenticated before it anchors a peer-to-peer argument..

Scheduling: getting the call before the window closes

Peer-to-peer review windows are frequently short, sometimes measured in a business day or two after a prior-authorization denial, and payers publish their own scheduling mechanics — often a dedicated phone line or an online scheduling tool separate from general provider services.

Cigna, for one named example, publishes its coverage and claims policies, including the procedural steps for disputing a coverage decision, on its own provider portal, and reading a specific payer's own scheduling instructions is the only reliable way to request a call with that payer, since the process differs from one payer's portal to the next 5Ref 5Cigna (2026).Cigna Coverage and Claims Policies.That Cigna publishes its own coverage and claims policies, including procedural steps for disputing a coverage decision, on its provider portal — cited only as Cigna's own named example, never as what all payers do..

During the call: answer the criterion, not the diagnosis

The reviewer on a peer-to-peer call is almost never disputing the diagnosis; they are evaluating whether the payer's own published criteria were met, which is a narrower and more answerable question. Leading with the criterion — this patient's documented severity meets element three of the policy, on this date, in this note — gets to the actual decision faster than leading with a general clinical narrative.

If the reviewer raises a criterion the call was not prepared for, saying so plainly and offering to submit the specific supporting documentation afterward is a stronger move than improvising an answer that cannot be backed by the chart on the call.

If the call doesn't resolve it

Not every peer-to-peer call ends in the denial being reversed, and that outcome doesn't waste the effort — the specific criterion the reviewer cited becomes the roadmap for whatever comes next, whether that's a formal written appeal or, for a benefit genuinely excluded rather than a clinical dispute, a conversation with the patient about the balance. Writing down the reviewer's stated reason immediately after the call, while it's still exact, is worth more than trying to reconstruct it later from memory.

A peer-to-peer that ends in an upheld denial is not a wasted fifteen minutes if it produces a precise reason a formal appeal can actually answer, rather than the vague reason the original denial letter gave. That specificity is often the whole difference between a formal appeal that engages the payer's real objection and one that restates the original claim and hopes for a different result.

Why the effort is worth it

Denials are common and any form of pushback against one is comparatively rare — KFF's analysis of federal transparency data found consumers appeal well under one percent of denied claims even at the ordinary internal-appeal stage, and a peer-to-peer conversation is a still-less-used step ahead of that 6Ref 6Kaiser Family Foundation (2025).Claims Denials and Appeals in ACA Marketplace Plans.That consumers appeal well under one percent of denied claims even at the internal-appeal stage, per KFF's analysis of federal transparency data, framing how underused a peer-to-peer call is relative to the denials it could address..

A prepared fifteen-minute call is often faster than a written appeal and can resolve the question before the claim is ever formally denied, which makes it one of the higher-return uses of a solo's limited appeals time, provided the preparation happens before the call rather than during it.

Common questions

The treating clinician, or someone who can speak with direct clinical authority about that specific patient's case — not office staff and not a biller. The call exists because the payer's reviewing physician expects to discuss clinical reasoning with someone qualified to give it, and sending anyone else tends to produce a shorter, less productive conversation than the process is designed for.

The denial reason in the payer's own terms, that payer's published coverage policy for the specific service, and the one or two chart notes that most directly answer the policy's criteria. Reading the Claim Adjustment Reason Code and its paired remark code ahead of time means arriving able to state exactly why the service was denied, not asking the reviewer to explain it.

A peer-to-peer is a live conversation, usually scheduled quickly after a prior-authorization or concurrent-review denial, aimed at resolving the question before or instead of a written appeal. A formal appeal is a written process with its own deadlines and documentation requirements. Some payers treat a peer-to-peer as a step that can happen alongside or before a formal appeal rather than replacing it.

Say so plainly rather than improvising an answer the chart cannot back up. Offering to submit the specific documentation afterward, once you can pull the exact note or test result, is a stronger and more credible move than answering a clinical question from memory during a fifteen-minute call, and it keeps the record accurate.

Yes — a payer's coverage criteria are contractual and specific to that payer, so the policy that matters is the one belonging to the plan on the call, not a different payer's published standard, even for the same service. Reading the actual payer's own clinical policy bulletin or coverage policy before the call is what lets the conversation answer the real criterion in dispute.

Run your practice on Gale

The software is free. Gale earns one flat 3.5% all-in per paid transaction — only on transactions that actually pay. No subscription, no setup fee, no network cut.

Start or manage a practice →

References

1.Aetna (2026). Aetna Clinical Policy Bulletins. Aetna provider portal. link ✓That Aetna publishes its medical and reimbursement policies on its provider portal — cited only as Aetna's own named example of a payer stating its coverage criteria in writing, never as what all payers do.
2.X12 (2026). Claim Adjustment Reason Codes. X12. link ✓That CARCs are the standard code list explaining why a claim or service line was paid differently than billed, used here to read the denial reason before the call.
3.X12 (2026). Remittance Advice Remark Codes. X12. link ✓That RARCs supply the supplemental detail beyond the CARC on a remittance, maintained by X12 as a public list, used here to arrive at the call with the specific denial detail rather than a general sense of it.
4.Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (2023). Complying with Medicare Signature Requirements. CMS Medicare Learning Network (MLN905364). link ✓That Medicare requires services to be authenticated by a valid signature and that attestation can cure a note missing one, used here as the discipline for confirming a note is properly authenticated before it anchors a peer-to-peer argument.
5.Cigna (2026). Cigna Coverage and Claims Policies. Cigna provider portal. link ✓That Cigna publishes its own coverage and claims policies, including procedural steps for disputing a coverage decision, on its provider portal — cited only as Cigna's own named example, never as what all payers do.
6.Kaiser Family Foundation (2025). Claims Denials and Appeals in ACA Marketplace Plans. KFF. link ✓That consumers appeal well under one percent of denied claims even at the internal-appeal stage, per KFF's analysis of federal transparency data, framing how underused a peer-to-peer call is relative to the denials it could address.

https://www.gale.care/for-providers/dn-peer-to-peer-review · 6 sources. Competitor details are cited to dated public sources and maintained as they change; figures are estimates, not commitments. Synthetic demonstration.

← Back to for providers