Acute Myeloid Leukemia denials in California external review

In the California DMHC record, independent physician reviewers decided 12 published external-review cases involving acute myeloid leukemiaand overturned the plan’s denial in 83.3%. That is a historical result among cases that reached this program, not a forecast for an individual appeal.

California DMHC decisions
12
2004–2022
Overturned
83.3%
10 denials reversed

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.
9
77.8%
Experimental/Investigational
The plan called the treatment unproven. These turn on published evidence, so the appeal is a literature argument.
3
100%
Typical time to a decision
6 days
Most land between 4 and 13 days
Handled as urgent
83.3%
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

Physician 1The patient is a 57-year-old male with well-controlled HIV who is on highly active antiretroviral therapy. The patient has acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and possible antecedent MDS. He is now being considered for consolidation of first remission with a peripheral stem cell transplant. The Health Plan has denied authorization and coverage for the requested therapy on the basis it is considered experimental.Further data regarding this patient’s AML, AHD, and cytogenetics is needed to help define where he falls in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. The decision to pursue treatment should rest on those data and not on his HIV positivity. As such, cytogenetic results and additional hematologic data should be obtained. Unless the patient’s HIV is poorly controlled, his HIV status does not preclude stem cell transplantation.
Experimental/Investigational · 2004 · IMR EI04-3886
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: An enrollee has requested reimbursement for fertility preservation (ovarian stimulation, oocyte retrieval, oocyte fertilization, and storage of oocytes and/or embryos) who has been diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia. Findings: The physician reviewer found that egg retrieval and freezing (cryopreservation) is now a recognized option for women who have cancer and who are undergoing treatment that can render them infertile in the future by being toxic to their ovaries/eggs. This option allows these patients to have children in the future. Technically, they are not infertile when undergoing the procedure, as the goal is to protect their gametes from the effect of the chemotherapy. This procedure is a treatment that is appropriate to discuss and offer to such patients.
Medical Necessity · 2017 · IMR MN17-26920

Where the denial was upheld

Worth reading too — these show what an appeal has to overcome.
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: The patient has requested authorization and coverage for Tibsovo 250 mg two (2) tablets daily. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration indicates that Tibsovo, an isocitrate dehydrogenase-1 (IDH1) inhibitor, is appropriate for the treatment of advanced acute myeloid leukemia. While researchersfound that ivosidenib was well-tolerated with no dose-limiting toxicities in a phase I trial of 66 patients with advanced IDH1-mutant astrocytoma, oligodendroglioma, or glioblastoma, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends several other treatment options. In this case, the patient has only been treated with surgery, and the documentation does not reflect other attempted therapies or treatment options, including possible resection, radiation, temozolomide, Lomustine or carmustine, and platinum-based regimens.
Medical Necessity · 2020 · IMR MN20-33530
A 57-year-old male enrollee has requested for Gleevec (imatinib) for treatment of his Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML). Findings: The physician reviewer found that there is very little data regarding the use of Gleevec in AML, even those with c-kit mutation. There have only been small studies published over the past few years that do indicate some degree of activity in this situation (see Kindler, et al.). However, Chevallier, et al. published a particularly negative trial. Therefore, there is no convincing evidence that there is a sufficient likelihood of benefit from Gleevec for this patient when used as a maintenance therapy.
Medical Necessity · 2009 · IMR MN09-9318

Figures and quotations on this page come from 42,749 published decisions in the California DMHC Independent Medical Review dataset. These are California external-review outcomes. Other state and federal programs have different eligibility rules, processes, and current availability; the rates here do not transfer to those programs or predict an individual result. 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 describe eligible cases completed through California DMHC’s Independent Medical Review program. They do not estimate the chance that an internal appeal, an external review in another jurisdiction, or your individual case will succeed. Use the record to identify evidence patterns involving acute myeloid leukemia, then check the rights and deadlines that apply to your plan.

SOURCE: CALIFORNIA DMHC INDEPENDENT MEDICAL REVIEW OUTCOMES (CHHS OPEN DATA) · AGGREGATES + DEIDENTIFIED DECISION EXCERPTS/REFERENCE IDS · 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 myeloid leukemia? Use the California record to prepare.

Explain my denial — freeStart my appeal · $9