Dizziness denials in California external review
In the California DMHC record, independent physician reviewers decided 20 published external-review cases involving dizzinessand overturned the plan’s denial in 40%. That is a historical result among cases that reached this program, not a forecast for an individual appeal.
What the insurer actually argued
| Reason given | Decisions | Overturned |
|---|---|---|
Medical Necessity The plan said the care wasn’t medically necessary. The most common fight, and the most winnable. | 12 | 33.3% |
Experimental/Investigational The plan called the treatment unproven. These turn on published evidence, so the appeal is a literature argument. | 4 | 50% |
Urgent Care Expedited reviews, decided in days rather than weeks. | 4 | 50% |
What the reviewers wrote
Where the denial was overturned
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: A patient has requested reimbursement for a computerized dynamic posturography sensory organization test. Computerized dynamic posturography provides a multisensory assessment of balance and measures the ability to incorporate vestibular, visual, and proprioceptive inputs to assess the functional status or vestibular compensation and inform vestibular rehabilitation. Based on the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS) guidelines, computerized dynamic posturography is medically indicated and appropriate in the evaluation or therapy of certain individuals with suspected balance or dizziness.
Findings: The physician reviewer found that Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: An enrollee has requested reimbursement for a tilt table test. The records document that this patient presented to her provider with complaints of dizziness and palpitations. The patient is noted to have a history of Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and mast cell activation syndrome. Palpitations are sensations of a rapid or irregular heartbeat and are commonly caused by cardiac arrhythmias or anxiety, though there are many other causes as well. When palpitations are accompanied by dizziness, it is considered a more serious condition that requires further assessment. The patient underwent evaluation for unexplained symptoms of dizziness and palpitations with an echocardiogram, which was normal, and Zio monitor, which demonstrated abnormal atrial tachycardia.
Where the denial was upheld
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: An enrollee has requested authorization and coverage for a computed tomography (CT) scan or magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) or angiography and magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) scan. The Health Plan has denied this request indicating that the requested diagnostic procedures are not medically necessary for evaluation of the enrollee’s dizziness. The requested for CT scan, MRS or angiography and MRA scan are not medically necessary for evaluation of the patient’s medical condition. In this case, the patient has a history of dizziness without evidence of other neurologic deficits. Symptoms have been present for at least four years, and the patient has been seen by a neurologist, who did not detect an underlying disease. In addition, the patient underwent an MRI of the brain in 2016 which was negative.
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: An enrollee has requested reimbursement for 30-day CardioNet mobile cardiac outpatient telemetry (CPT 93229). The patient has a low risk of a life-threatening arrhythmia based on his age, personal history, and family history. The records report that the patient’s echocardiogram was normal and he has no history of syncope. Current guidelines generally recommend external patient triggered or automated loop recorders for patients with infrequent symptoms. Use of MCOT real time monitoring is reserved for symptomatic patients with a high likelihood of life-threatening arrhythmias requiring immediate action or attention. This patient has infrequent but longstanding dizziness episodes without syncope. The records do not include any prior investigations for arrhythmia or evidence of structural heart disease.
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.
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 dizziness, 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