Home / Conditions / Amputation
Amputation: when insurers say no, reviewers often say yes
In 86 published external-review decisions involving amputation, independent physician reviewers overturned the insurer’s denial 41.9% of the time.
Published decisions
86
2001–2026
Overturned
41.9%
36 denials reversed
Most-fought treatments for amputation
What insurers denied — and how those fights ended.
| Category | Decisions | Overturned |
|---|---|---|
| Prosthesis | 55 | 49.1% |
| Electric Wheelchair | 6 | 33.3% |
| Wheelchair | 5 | 40% |
| Inpt Admission | 3 | 33.3% |
| Physical Therapy | 3 | 33.3% |
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 given | Decisions | Overturned |
|---|---|---|
Medical Necessity The plan said the care wasn’t medically necessary. The most common fight, and the most winnable. | 67 | 41.8% |
Experimental/Investigational The plan called the treatment unproven. These turn on published evidence, so the appeal is a literature argument. | 19 | 42.1% |
Typical time to a decision
21 days
Most land between 14 and 23 days
Handled as urgent
14%
Expedited when a delay would cause harm
Recent direction
Rising
30% → 46.2% overturned, last three years
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 19-year-old male who had a right hip disarticulation, which makes for a difficult gait that requires high-energy demand. The patient reports he is limited in activities of daily living with his current prosthesis. The patient has requested authorization and coverage for an Otto Bock C-leg to allow the patient to function at a higher level of activity. The Health Plan has denied the request on the basis that the requested equipment is considered investigational.Unfortunately, the patient’s gait will always be impacted and walking will take a great deal of energy due to the high level of amputation. The efficacy and safety of the Otto Bock C-leg remains unproven. The reliability of this prosthesis must be further investigated with regard to slippage of electrodes, etc.
Findings: The physician reviewer found that Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: A patient has requested authorization and coverage for trans-radial myoelectric prosthesis with Coapt pattern recognition, TASKA hand prosthesis, and supplies. Per ODG’s criteria for the use of myoelectric upper extremity prosthetic devices, this patient meets the criteria for the requested equipment. The patient has sufficient neurological, myocutaneous, and cognitive function to operate the prosthesis effectively. He has an amputation or missing limb at the wrist or above. He is free of comorbidities that could interfere with maintaining the function of the prostheses. He retains sufficient microvolt threshold in the residual limb to allow proper function of the prosthesis, as he has had targeted muscle reinnervation (TMR) for prosthesis control.
Where the denial was upheld
Worth reading too — these show what an appeal has to overcome.
Findings: The physician reviewer found that a patient has requested reimbursement and prospective authorization and coverage for continued inpatient level of care services, or in the alternative, acute rehabilitation services.Admission to an inpatient rehabilitation facility is intended to provide intensive rehabilitation therapy in a resource-intensive inpatient hospital environment for patients who have complex nursing and rehabilitation needs and require the medical management of a rehabilitation physician at least three days per week. Patients are expected to benefit from an inpatient stay and an interdisciplinary team approach to the delivery of rehabilitation care. This treatment plan includes ongoing treatment by physical and occupational therapies and speech-language pathology.
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: The patient has a history of multiple chronic medical conditions, including arthropathy, for which he underwent a total left knee replacement in the past. This was complicated by an infection, and he ultimately underwent a left transfemoral amputation on 11/1/11. The patient underwent rehabilitation, including prosthetic ambulation training. He received a `preparatory` endoskeletal prosthesis in or around 2011 with an Ossur Symbionic (microprocessor-aided) knee, but he reportedly gained weight and could no longer use this prosthesis. Case management notes indicate that he received a replacement prosthesis in 2013 due to a weight gain of approximately 80 lbs. On 9/17/18, his provider noted that he is a current smoker of 11-20 cigarettes per day.
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 amputation 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.