AcyclicLabs
← Eval examples

Was the Medicare Advantage prior auth late?

Our Medicare Advantage plan (Lakeshore Advantage HMO) took 12 calendar days to decide a standard (non-expedited) prior authorization request for an outpatient MRI that we submitted complete on 2026-09-08, and the denial letter said only 'not medically necessary'. Was the plan within its federal timeframe, and what can we demand from them? Our payer contract, a vendor advisory and our own SOP say different things; sort out which is right.
agents
14 agents
wall time
4:44 wall time
quotes confirmed at their source (11 not found on the page)
31 quotes confirmed at their source (11 not found on the page)
web lookups
74 web lookups
inference and sandboxes
$1.17 inference and sandboxes
rubric items
13/14 rubric items

From swarmbench's healthconflict dataset. The plan, contract, vendor memo, SOP and denial letter are fictional; the CMS rules are real.

The traps: a 2024 contract amendment with the old 14-day clock, a vendor advisory that misdates the new rule, and Slack hearsay about when the clock starts.

The agents did not choose their strategy alone: the root agent got the question together with our research instructions (split the work by document and source, keep a shared ledger in /shared, check every quote at its source). Those instructions, the harness's role preamble and internal ids are left out of the transcripts below; everything else is as it happened.

Graded 13 of 14 rubric items by Claude Opus 5.5, the median of our 6 swarm runs of this question (range 11–13). There are no single-agent runs of this question to compare with. This run is shown because it has every agent's full transcript. The rubric is held back so the question stays a usable test.

Models: gpt-5.6-luna, gpt-5.6-sol.

The root agent's final answer

Final answer: No, assuming—as the case records say—the MRI was a non-drug Medicare Advantage service subject to prior authorization. The federal standard deadline was 7 calendar days after receipt beginning January 1, 2026; a September 8 request was due September 15 absent a valid extension, so a September 20 decision was 5 days late, and the page-1 phrase “not medically necessary” alone is not the required specific reason (though missing page 2 prevents auditing the full notice). Confidence: 94%

What to do

  • Demand a compliant written denial: the specific and detailed clinical/factual basis, the applicable Medicare coverage rule or plan policy/criterion, reconsideration rights, both standard and expedited reconsideration procedures, and the rest of the appeal process. Cite 42 CFR 422.568(e), 422.122(a), and CMS-10003-NDMCP instructions.
  • Request (without assuming an immediate entitlement) the complete case file and missing page 2, and demand proof of any extension: its date, written reasons, qualifying basis, why it served the enrollee’s interest, and notice of the right to an expedited grievance. Section 422.568 permits an extension only if the enrollee requests it, additional evidence is needed from a noncontract provider and may change a denial, or extraordinary/nonroutine circumstances exist—and the extension must serve the enrollee’s interest. Nothing supplied documents an extension; the unsolicited September 10 courtesy fax was not a plan request and does not, on this record, restart receipt.
  • Treat the missed deadline itself as an adverse organization determination and appeal it under 42 CFR 422.568(f). A party—or a treating physician acting for the enrollee after giving notice—generally requests standard reconsideration within 60 calendar days after receipt of the written notice; good cause can extend that deadline. Ask the plan whether the untimely case was forwarded as CMS requires to the Part C Independent Review Entity (IRE). If delay could seriously jeopardize life, health, or maximum function, request expedited reconsideration.
  • Challenge medical necessity on the merits too, supplying the clinical record and asking the plan to identify the exact criterion and reviewer rationale. A missed clock does not itself prove the MRI medically necessary or compel approval.
  • File a grievance about untimeliness/inadequate notice and escalate through the plan’s Medicare process/provider relations; preserve portal receipts and the PA log. Consider a complaint to 1-800-MEDICARE/CMS if the plan will not correct systemic noncompliance, but a complaint/grievance is not a substitute for timely reconsideration.

Conflicts found

  • Participating Provider Agreement Amendment No. 3 (March 14, 2024) says 14 calendar days and permits an additional 14 days where law permits. That was compatible with the former general rule but is stale/wrong for a 2026 item subject to PA. Its own §12.1 says federal law controls; 42 CFR 422.568(b)(1)(ii) governs at 7 days. Its 72-hour expedited service clock remains generally right, but extension language is overbroad unless federal conditions and notices are satisfied. Its statement that a denial may merely name a category conflicts with federal specific-reason and appeal-content requirements.
  • AuthBridge advisory (August 2026) conflates dates. CMS-0057-F’s PA API requirement begins January 1, 2027, but the 7-day operational decision clock and specific-denial-reason obligation began January 1, 2026. Its “10 to 14 days is compliant,” “don’t escalate,” and reason-only-in-2027 statements are wrong. Its Federal Register citation, 89 FR 8758 (Feb. 8, 2024), is accurate.
  • Riverbend SOP RC-11 (January 2026) says follow contract timeframes. That is unsafe where a contract is stale and federal law controls. Its 24-hour expedited/72-hour standard clocks are Part D drug rules, correct in that stated scope but irrelevant to an outpatient MRI. Its logging instructions are useful internal controls, not federal timing law.
  • Slack export (September 21, 2026) correctly observes 12 elapsed calendar days but incorrectly says the 7-day rule is Medicaid-only, MA remains 14 days, and the clock began with the unsolicited September 10 fax. Both MA and affected Medicaid payers have 2026 operational rules, but separate authorities govern them; the MA rule controls here. “Not worth a fight” is advice, not fact, and should not be followed.
  • CMS legacy Chapter 13/current web material may still state a generic 14-day standard organization-determination period. That is not a genuine governing conflict: the current codified regulation distinguishes non-PA items (14 days) from §422.122 PA items (7 days beginning in 2026). The narrower, later codified rule governs this PA.

Not actually conflicts

  • The 2027 PA API date and 2026 decision/reason dates regulate different obligations. CMS-0057-F was effective April 8, 2024; these MA operational provisions apply in 2026, while the PA API begins in 2027. A separate one-business-day API-data-availability rule is not the adjudication deadline.
  • A 14-day clock still exists for service/item requests not subject to §422.122 PA rules; this MRI was expressly logged and noticed as a PA, although public sources cannot independently authenticate Lakeshore’s case classification.
  • Part D drug clocks do not apply to this Part C medical service.
  • “12 days” is consistent across the log and letter if September 8 and September 20 are read as the dates; counting elapsed calendar days yields 12. The duplicate receipt row must not be counted twice.
  • The audit’s Massachusetts OPP external-review material, state MRI form, and MassHealth 7-day material are collateral and do not create rights for this Medicare Advantage case; OPP applies only if independently applicable state-regulated coverage exists. The Buckeye CT/MRI material concerns the unrelated PA-88140 row and cannot establish Lakeshore obligations.

Document audit

  • local-denial-letter-ocr: Partly reliable, incomplete. It identifies PA-88213, MRI lumbar spine without contrast/CPT 72148, a September 20, 2026 denial, and the OCR-rendered reason “Not rnedically necessary.” Page 2 is missing and OCR confuses O/0, 1/I, so the full notice and appeal directions cannot be audited. The displayed reason is not sufficiently specific. Massachusetts OPP and a state MRI form located during audit are collateral, do not authenticate this case, and do not establish Medicare Advantage remedies.
  • local-internal-sop-pa-escalation: Partly right/off-scope. Part D 24/72 clocks and exception timing are correctly limited to drugs; documentation fields are sensible local policy. “Follow the contract” fails to account for controlling federal change for this MRI.
  • local-pa-log-export: Useful case evidence with quality issues. It has six physical rows, five unique events, and an exact duplicate receipt row. PA-88213 runs September 8 receipt → September 10 unsolicited extra note → September 15 status check → September 20 denial, totaling 12 elapsed calendar days (2+5+5). Mixed date formats and blank submission cells create risk. Its other Buckeye CT case is independent, records a 7-day approval under U.S. date interpretation, and does not establish Lakeshore’s rule.
  • local-payer-contract-amendment-2024: Stale/partly right. Correct on the historical 14-day framework and 72-hour expedited services, and crucially says federal law controls. Wrong for a 2026 standard PA and inadequate on denial content.
  • local-slack-rev-cycle: Partly factual but materially wrong. The case/date arithmetic holds; the representative’s legal statements and clock-reset claim do not.
  • local-vendor-memo-authbridge-2026-08: Materially wrong through date conflation. Only the API’s 2027 timing and cited final-rule reference hold; operational timing and denial-reason conclusions do not.

Sources