Home / Conditions / Colitis Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Colitis Inflammatory Bowel Disease: when insurers say no, reviewers often say yes

In 24 published external-review decisions involving colitis inflammatory bowel disease, 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 colitis inflammatory bowel disease

What insurers denied — and how those fights ended.
CategoryDecisionsOverturned
Biologics7
85.7%
Digestion GI Rx6
66.7%
Lab Work4
50%

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.
16
68.8%
Experimental/Investigational
The plan called the treatment unproven. These turn on published evidence, so the appeal is a literature argument.
7
57.1%
Typical time to a decision
14 days
Most land between 4 and 21 days
Handled as urgent
45.8%
Expedited when a delay would cause harm
Recent direction
Rising
60%76.9% 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: The patient has requested authorization and coverage for infliximab (Inflectra), dosed at 22 mg/kg given every two weeks for two to four treatments. Assa and colleagues note that it is common for patients with very early onset inflammatory bowel disease (VEO-IBD) to require higher than standard doses of infliximab. Bramuzzo and colleagues report that while there are very few data regarding the use of infliximab in children with VEO-IBD, compared with older children, VEO-IBD patients have higher rates of infliximab failures, lower remission rates at one year, and more often experience adverse events during induction. In this case, the patient has VEO-IBD that has not responded to steroids, enteral nutrition therapy, or vedolizumab.
Medical Necessity · 2021 · IMR MN21-36112
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: The patient has requested authorization and coverage for Stelara 90 mg every four weeks. The records provided for review document that this patient has failed multiple therapies including conventional therapy and high-dose Entyvio, which are recommended for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (Rubin, et al.; Sands, et al.). Subsequently, the patient experienced good results with Stelara every eight weeks, with return of symptoms and a low trough level. The provider has recommended treatment with Stelara every four weeks. Stelara has been demonstrated to be safe and effective in the treatment of ulcerative colitis.
Medical Necessity · 2021 · IMR MN21-36638

Where the denial was upheld

Worth reading too — these show what an appeal has to overcome.
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: Th patient requested authorization and coverage for Percocet.The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines state that when opioid therapy is used, a patient’s regimen should include nonpharmacologic therapy and nonopioid pharmacologic interventions. Additionally, the CDC noted that “Clinicians should continue opioid therapy only if there is clinically meaningful improvement in pain and function that outweighs risks to patient safety.” The Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) guidelines noted that “continuation, modification or termination of opioid therapy for pain is contingent on the clinician’s evaluation of (1) evidence of the patient’s progress toward treatment objectives and (2) the absence of substantial risks or adverse events, such as signs of substance use disorder and/or diversion.” The FSMB opined that dosage s…
Medical Necessity · 2023 · IMR MN23-39610
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: An enrollee has requested reimbursement for an infliximab (Remicade) anti-body level test (laboratory procedure #80230 and #82542).Findings: Two of the three physician reviewers found the infliximab (Remicade) anti-body level test (laboratory procedure #80230 and #82542) was not likely to have been more beneficial for treatment of the patient’s medical condition than any available standard therapy. The service at issue is a quantitative monitoring assay designed to measure infliximab and antibodies to infliximab levels, intended to provide insight into factors contributing to a patient's loss of response and to guide treatment decisions.
Experimental/Investigational · 2021 · IMR EI21-35920

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 colitis inflammatory bowel disease 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 colitis inflammatory bowel disease? 66.7% won.

Explain my denial — freeStart my appeal · $39