Yea, so sent a PM just to clarify a few thing I am aware of in this area.
A general summary for everyone else:
Psychologists do "peer reviews." "Utilization Review" is essentially the same thing, but can be done by nurses or master-level clinicians. In a "peer review" (only MD/Ph.D), you would also be reviewing for the "medical necessity" and clinical appropriateness of the request, but may also be required to the speak with requesting doctor/therapist to gather more information, especially if the request has already been denied once and you are doing a "3rd-level review" (reconsideration/peer-to-peer). Psychologists can review requests for Psychological/Neuropsycholgical Testing, Outpatient level services, and Intensive Outpatient Programs (IOP). Only MDs can review requests for inpatient (MH and SUDs) and Partial Hospitalization Programs (PHPs).
There are 3 or 4 independent companies I am ware of that contract to do these these reviews for insurance companies on a fee-for-service basis. They have a panel of psychologists (and MDs) that review cases as 1099 workers. These contract reviews/reviewers are pretty costly for insurance companies, and often (but not always) provide lower quality reviews and much less "care shaping" information in their reviews....as opposed to when companies hire psychologists to do this full-time internally (where they are actually invested in the work/company/mission vs just "making some side money"). My company and some others (e.g., Optum/UBH) employ psychologists internally for these reviews. My company has 7 full-time psychologist for this. I think Optum/UBH has almost 15? Beacon (formerly Value Options) have some, as does New Directions, AETNA, and various other state health plans throughout the country.