Prior authorization, precertification, and predetermination are overlapping terms for a payer's pre-service review. 'Precertification' and 'prior authorization' are usually used interchangeably for a required approval that a planned service is covered and medically necessary; 'predetermination' is typically a non-binding estimate. Missing a required authorization drives a CO-197 denial.
The terms, untangled
- Prior authorization / precertification — a required, pre-service approval; without it the claim can deny as CO-197.
- Predetermination — usually a voluntary, non-binding estimate of coverage, not a guarantee.
- Notification — simply telling the payer a service will occur, where required, without a full review.
Approval is not payment
An authorization confirms medical necessity for a planned service — it does not guarantee the claim will pay. Eligibility can lapse, the service can be coded differently than authorized, coordination-of-benefits or other edits can intervene. So an approved prior auth is a strong appeal argument against a CO-197, but it isn't a blanket promise of payment, and the two shouldn't be confused.
An auth answers 'is it necessary?', not 'will it pay?'
Frequently asked
Does prior authorization guarantee payment?
Is precertification different from prior authorization?
Primary sources: CMS — Interoperability & Prior Authorization Final Rule (CMS-0057-F). General information, not legal or medical advice — confirm against the governing rule for the plan type.
When the appeal has to be written, and cited
Upload the denied EOB and Merits returns a complete, citation-verified appeal letter — the clinical argument, the payer's own coverage criteria, and your federal appeal rights — in about a minute.
