Home / Conditions / Hearing Problem
Hearing Problem: when insurers say no, reviewers often say yes
In 86 published external-review decisions involving hearing problem, independent physician reviewers overturned the insurer’s denial 31.4% of the time.
Published decisions
86
2001–2026
Overturned
31.4%
27 denials reversed
Most-fought treatments for hearing problem
What insurers denied — and how those fights ended.
| Category | Decisions | Overturned |
|---|---|---|
| Hearing Aid | 20 | 35% |
| Cochlear Implant | 17 | 23.5% |
| Speech Therapy | 4 | 100% |
| OON Referral | 3 | 0% |
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 | 35.8% |
Experimental/Investigational The plan called the treatment unproven. These turn on published evidence, so the appeal is a literature argument. | 19 | 15.8% |
Typical time to a decision
21 days
Most land between 16 and 22 days
Recent direction
Falling
35.7% → 30.8% 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
The patient is a 15-year-old male with profound bilateral sensorineural hearing loss, 110dB right, 105dB left. There is no family history of hearing loss. Cochlear anatomy appears normal on temporal bone CT. The patient has worn bilateral hearing aids since 18 months of age and a frequency modulated system at school, which have improved his hearing threshold to moderately severe range, assisting primarily in sound localization. The patient, supported by both parents, wishes to proceed with cochlear implantation since behind the ear aids are of no benefit now and the patient has not been using them recently due to the absence of benefit noted with use.The patient is very motivated and desires to be independent. He is mainstreamed in high school and maintains a high grade point average in addition to being involved in extracurricular activities.
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: An enrollee has requested authorization and coverage for cochlear auditory implant for treatment of the enrollee’s hearing loss. Findings: The physician reviewer found that bone conduction hearing aids have been traditionally used for conductive hearing losses. However, expanded indications for Bone Anchored Hearing Aid (BAHA) implantations are developing for sensorineural hearing loss as well. Single-sided deafness (SSD) from pathology, such as acoustic neuromas, or sudden sensorineural hearing loss are recent rationales made for bone conduction aids. Reported benefits for SSD patients include better sound localization and better sound clarity. Classic thinking has been that bone stimulates both cochlea simultaneously.
Where the denial was upheld
Worth reading too — these show what an appeal has to overcome.
This patient is a 32-year-old woman who during evaluation for problems with balance and complaints of aural fullness bilaterally, was found to have a mild sensorineural hearing loss involving the left ear. She was initially given the diagnosis of probable Meniere’s disease and treated with a diuretic. In May 2003, the patient had a worsening of her hearing on the left and was treated with steroids. She then developed tinnitus involving her right ear. Further evaluation included an MRI, which revealed the presence of a 1-2mm focus of enhancement at the superior posterior aspect of the right internal auditory canal. The patient consulted another provider for a second opinion and was diagnosed with right-sided acoustic neuroma.
The patient is a two-year-old female who has a history of profound bilateral congenital sensorineural hearing loss diagnosed at 15 months of age by Auditory Brainstem Response testing. A three-month trial of power hearing aids was of little benefit. Audiologic testing revealed responses/threshold between 100dB and no response for the right ear and between 95dB and no response for the left ear. Binaural aided testing with the power hearing aids revealed thresholds between 50-70dB. CT scan imaging of the temporal bones revealed anatomy suitable for cochlear implantation. The recommendation of the cochlear implant team is for simultaneous bilateral implants.
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 hearing problem 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.