Breathing Problem denials in California external review

In the California DMHC record, independent physician reviewers decided 44 published external-review cases involving breathing problemand overturned the plan’s denial in 56.8%. That is a historical result among cases that reached this program, not a forecast for an individual appeal.

California DMHC decisions
44
2018–2025
Overturned
56.8%
25 denials reversed

Most-fought treatments for breathing problem

What insurers denied — and how those fights ended.
CategoryDecisionsOverturned
Pneumatic Vest3
66.7%
CT Scan3
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 givenDecisionsOverturned
Medical Necessity
The plan said the care wasn’t medically necessary. The most common fight, and the most winnable.
31
48.4%
Experimental/Investigational
The plan called the treatment unproven. These turn on published evidence, so the appeal is a literature argument.
12
75%
Typical time to a decision
14 days
Most land between 7 and 21 days
Handled as urgent
47.7%
Expedited when a delay would cause harm
Recent direction
Rising
41.2%69.6% 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

Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: An enrollee has requested authorization and coverage for bronchoscopy with endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS), Ion Robot Navigation and/or approval of insertion of bronchial valve. For patients who have peripheral lung lesions that are difficult to reach such as apical lung lesions, electromagnetic navigation guidance is recommended if the equipment and expertise is available. As noted in the medical literature, Robot Navigation to guide bronchoscopy can provide higher yield with high sensitivity and specificity than conventional bronchoscopy. Complication rates such as pneumothorax are lower than traditional bronchoscopy with transthoracic needle aspiration. For further evaluation of this patient’s lung nodules, the requested Ion Robot Navigation is likely to be more beneficial with increased diagnostic yield as compared to standard therapy.
Experimental/Investigational · 2023 · IMR EI23-38482
Findings: The physician reviewer found that Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: The patient has requested reimbursement for transthoracic echocardiography under stress. In this case, the patient reported progressively worsening exercise intolerance and dyspnea on exertion. For a male patient between the ages of 50 and 59 with typical/definite anginal equivalent symptoms, the pretest probability of coronary disease is assessed as intermediate to high. Researchers report that in patients with suspected stable coronary artery disease (CAD), intermediate pretest probability, and preserved ejection fraction, stress imaging, such as stress echocardiography, is preferred as the initial test option.
Medical Necessity · 2023 · IMR MN23-39994

Where the denial was upheld

Worth reading too — these show what an appeal has to overcome.
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: A patient has requested authorization and coverage for a portable oxygen concentrator. Venous blood gases should not be used as an indication for portable oxygen concentrators. Furthermore, the subsequent chest computed tomography (CT) and pulmonary function tests argue against many potential causes of true hypoxemia in this patient. While carbon monoxide levels can cause a falsely elevated oxygen level from a pulse oximeter, the patient’s Raynaud’s syndrome could also be causing a falsely low level on pulse oximetry. As such, for this particular patient, a pulse oximeter is not an adequate test to determine oxygen content in the blood.
Medical Necessity · 2025 · IMR MN25-43918
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: The patient has been diagnosed with bronchopulmonary dysplasia and congenital malformation of the lung. The patient underwent tracheostomy and gastrostomy procedures with tracheostomy decannulation. In a letter, the provider noted the patient was receiving nebulizer treatments and chest physiotherapy. In a letter, the provider noted the patient had a complex history including prematurity. The provider also noted that the patient had recently contracted influenza and required an increase in nursing care for overnight respiratory monitoring. The patient was noted to be ambulatory with a steady gait. The patient was taking food by mouth and tube feedings without difficulty. The patient’s tracheostomy stoma was not completely closed and was covered with a gauze dressing.
Medical Necessity · 2020 · IMR MN20-33057

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 breathing problem, 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 breathing problem? Use the California record to prepare.

Explain my denial — freeStart my appeal · $9