Diabetes denials in California external review

In the California DMHC record, independent physician reviewers decided 94 published external-review cases involving diabetesand overturned the plan’s denial in 70.2%. That is a historical result among cases that reached this program, not a forecast for an individual appeal.

California DMHC decisions
94
2002–2025
Overturned
70.2%
66 denials reversed

Most-fought treatments for diabetes

What insurers denied — and how those fights ended.
CategoryDecisionsOverturned
Continuous Glucose Monitoring System11
81.8%
Insulin Pump5
60%
Byetta5
80%
Continuous Glucose Monitor3
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.
73
69.9%
Experimental/Investigational
The plan called the treatment unproven. These turn on published evidence, so the appeal is a literature argument.
21
71.4%
Typical time to a decision
18 days
Most land between 8 and 22 days
Handled as urgent
27.7%
Expedited when a delay would cause harm
Recent direction
Falling
86.7%66.7% 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

Findings: The physician reviewer found that Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: An enrollee has requested reimbursement for bone density study. According researchers guidelines, bone density screening is recommended for postmenopausal women under age 65 with one risk factor. The detection of subclinical vertebral fractures using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) vertebral fracture assessment is well established across current medical literature as results may alter clinical management. Recommendations for postmenopausal women over age 50 may include fracture, height loss, or glucocorticoid treatment. Other criteria include osteopenia and two or more of the following: being aged 60 to 69 years old, self-reported nonvertebral fractures, height loss, and chronic diseases associated with an increased risk of vertebral fractures.
Experimental/Investigational · 2024 · IMR EI24-41260
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: An enrollee has requested authorization and coverage for a continuous glucose monitoring system. Both the medical literature and the submitted documentation support the medical necessity of the requested CGM system. In 2016, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists published a consensus statement favoring the use of CGM on patients with diabetes. The statement indicates that CGM improves glycemic control and reduces hypoglycemia. Expanding CGM coverage and utilization is likely to improve the health outcomes of people with diabetes. CGM alerts patients to impending or actual low or high glucose values and thereby facilitates prompt action and prevention of hospitalizations. Multiple studies cited in the statement have documented the superiority of CGM in improving HbA1c levels by decreasing hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia.
Medical Necessity · 2019 · IMR MN19-30093

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 reimbursement and prospective authorization and coverage for Long-term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. LTACH level care is intended for patients who require care that is more medically complex than can be provided at lower levels of care, such as inpatient rehabilitation, or SNF levels of care. LTACH level of care includes provision of chest tubes, extensive wound care, stable cardiac drips, multiple intravenous antibiotics, hemodialysis, prolonged intravenous therapy, total parenteral nutrition, tracheostomy care, ventilator weaning, and frequent imaging and laboratory testing. In general, more than one of these treatments is being provided at the LTACH level of care.
Medical Necessity · 2020 · IMR MN20-33567
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: The patient has requested reimbursement and prospective authorization and coverage for skilled nursing facility care. Admission to a skilled nursing facility is appropriate for patients with conditions that require observation, evaluation of treatment plans, and updating of orders by a physician, as well as constantly available skilled nursing services. Patients require skilled nursing services, including wound management, tracheostomy care, bowel and bladder training and tube feeding, and administration of intravenous (IV) medications or medications that cannot be self-administered safely. Patients also require skilled nursing observation, including regular monitoring of vital signs, skin in the setting of wounds, and intake and output.
Medical Necessity · 2023 · IMR MN23-39672

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 diabetes, 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 diabetes? Use the California record to prepare.

Explain my denial — freeStart my appeal · $39