Home / Conditions / Acute Kidney Failure

Acute Kidney Failure: when insurers say no, reviewers often say yes

In 24 published external-review decisions involving acute kidney failure, independent physician reviewers overturned the insurer’s denial 66.7% of the time.

Published decisions
24
2001–2026
Overturned
66.7%
16 denials reversed

Most-fought treatments for acute kidney failure

What insurers denied — and how those fights ended.
CategoryDecisionsOverturned
Organ Transplant6
66.7%
Anti-inflammatories4
100%

What the insurer actually argued

Denials fall into different categories, and they don’t succeed equally — so the reason on your letter changes how you should answer it.
Reason givenDecisionsOverturned
Medical Necessity
The plan said the care wasn’t medically necessary. The most common fight, and the most winnable.
21
66.7%
Experimental/Investigational
The plan called the treatment unproven. These turn on published evidence, so the appeal is a literature argument.
3
66.7%
Typical time to a decision
12 days
Most land between 4 and 21 days
Handled as urgent
58.3%
Expedited when a delay would cause harm
What the reviewers wrote
Excerpts from the independent reviewers’ published findings — the actual reasoning, quoted, not summarised.

Where the denial was overturned

Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: The patient has requested reimbursement and prospective authorization and coverage for residential treatment center (RTC) services. Per the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) criteria, this patient meets Level 3.1 criteria for RTC services. ASAM criteria focuses on six dimensions to determine the appropriate level of care, which includes: (1) intoxication and withdrawal potential; (2) biomedical conditions; (3) emotional, behavioral and cognitive conditions; (4) readiness to change; (5) relapse, continued use, or continued problem potential; and (6) recovery environment. For dimension 1, the patient demonstrated post-acute withdrawal symptoms of cravings, anxiety, insomnia, and tremulousness. The patient’s withdrawal needs can be safely met in a level 3.1 setting.
Medical Necessity · 2020 · IMR MN20-33539
A 61-year-old male enrollee has requested authorization and coverage for Acthar, 80 mg subcutaneously, twice per week for treatment of the enrollee’s renal insufficiency status post right nephrectomy. Findings: The physician reviewer found that the cause of this patient’s nephrotic syndrome is not known with certainty because the patient has not had a kidney biopsy. However, it seems likely that this patient has FSGS secondary to hyperfiltration with a solitary kidney, in the setting of hypertension, despite being well controlled. This is a relatively common occurrence in patients with underlying renal risk factors, specifically hypertension, in patients who have a solitary kidney. Typically these patients do not respond to any immunosuppressive medications as it is not an immune-mediated process.
Medical Necessity · 2012 · IMR MN12-13836

Where the denial was upheld

Worth reading too — these show what an appeal has to overcome.
Findings: The physician reviewer found that the patient’s parent has requested reimbursement for inpatient hospital admission. Acute gastroenteritis is a major problem worldwide, representing one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in children under five years of age. Most cases are caused by viruses, are self-limited, and require supportive treatment. Oral rehydration therapy is the treatment of choice, particularly where diarrhea is the prominent feature and dehydration is mild to moderate. Intravenous (IV) rehydration is indicated when oral rehydration fails or when output is excessive. Vomiting limits the success of oral rehydration, prompting the use of anti-emetic medications. In this case, the patient, a male infant, presented with acute vomiting, diarrhea, and fever, with poor intake and decreased urine output.
Medical Necessity · 2024 · IMR MN24-42715
The patient is a 68-year-old man with a history of renal failure due to obstructive uropathy, which is likely due to a history of a long-standing enlarged prostate. He wishes to have a kidney transplant. The transplant team recommends he have urologic evaluation, and possible transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) to decrease the risk of obstructive uropathy effect on the possible kidney transplant. The patient notes he has seen urologists in the past who have recommended he have a TURP procedure, but he has always refused. The patient believes his kidney failure is due to salt overload and he is attempting exercises to help his prostate. The patient does not wish to undergo a TURP procedure as recommended by his provider. He wishes to be listed for kidney transplant without urologic clearance.
Medical Necessity · 2005 · IMR MN05-4099

Figures and quotations on this page come from 42,749 published decisions in the California DMHC Independent Medical Review dataset. These are California outcomes — every state runs an equivalent external review, but the rates here are California’s. Excerpts are quoted verbatim from the public record and describe this condition generally, not any individual case.

How to use this in your appeal

These outcomes come from California’s external review program — an independent physician panel whose decision binds the insurer. Every state has an equivalent, and internal appeals succeed even more often. If your care for acute kidney failure was denied, the published record says the denial is worth fighting.

SOURCE: CALIFORNIA DMHC INDEPENDENT MEDICAL REVIEW OUTCOMES (CHHS OPEN DATA) · DERIVED AGGREGATE STATISTICS ONLY · METHODOLOGY

Not legal or medical advice. Coverage Rights is a self-help tool that helps you prepare your own appeal. For advice about your specific situation, talk to a licensed attorney or your doctor.

Fighting a denial for acute kidney failure? 66.7% won.

Explain my denial — freeStart my appeal · $39