The Commonwealth Court rejected the employer’s proposed twist on the Bucks County decision holding that a utilization review determination that treatment is not reasonable and necessary cannot be applied to other providers of the same treatment. Here, the employer argued that a prospective URO is fundamentally different from a retrospective URO such that it would be unduly burdensome for the UR Determination not to apply to similar treatment by a similarly qualified provider. The Court unabashedly rejected the argument and reiterated that all UR Determinations are provider specific.