Home / Conditions / Incontinence

Incontinence: when insurers say no, reviewers often say yes

In 109 published external-review decisions involving incontinence, independent physician reviewers overturned the insurer’s denial 35.8% of the time.

Published decisions
109
2001–2026
Overturned
35.8%
39 denials reversed

Most-fought treatments for incontinence

What insurers denied — and how those fights ended.
CategoryDecisionsOverturned
Biofeedback9
33.3%
Incontinence Supplies5
40%
Physical Therapy3
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
Experimental/Investigational
The plan called the treatment unproven. These turn on published evidence, so the appeal is a literature argument.
67
23.9%
Medical Necessity
The plan said the care wasn’t medically necessary. The most common fight, and the most winnable.
42
54.8%
Typical time to a decision
20 days
Most land between 13 and 21 days
What the reviewers wrote
Excerpts from the independent reviewers’ published findings — the actual reasoning, quoted, not summarised.

Where the denial was overturned

Physician 1: The patient is a 45-year-old female with a 20-year history of urinary urge incontinence and a more recent history of stress incontinence. She was referred to a physical therapist for treatment of her condition and indicates that progress has been made. The patient has requested reimbursement for physical therapy with biofeedback and the purchase of a pelvic floor stimulator. The Health Plan has denied these requests based upon a determination that the therapies are experimental/investigational for treatment of the patient’s incontinence.It appears from the record that the patient was not thoroughly diagnosed prior to the prescription of treatment. A consultation with an urologist, an uro-gynecologist, or possibly even a neurologist would be appropriate. Cystoscopy and urodynamic studies should be done to rule out any neurological impairment.
Experimental/Investigational · 2006 · IMR EI06-5232
Findings: The physician reviewer found that Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: The patient requested authorization and coverage for Gemtesa for the treatment of urinary incontinence.The American Urological Association (AUA) guidelines indicate that overactive bladder occurs in the presence of urinary urgency accompanied by frequency in the absence of urinary tract infection or other obvious pathology. The AUA guidelines reveal that the beta-3 adrenoreceptor agonist, Gemtesa (vibegron), should be utilized as a second-line therapy for the treatment of overactive bladder and resulting urinary incontinence. A study indicated that anticholinergics have been used in the treatment of overactive bladder, but their use is limited by poor tolerability and anticholinergic-related side effects.
Medical Necessity · 2023 · IMR MN23-40220

Where the denial was upheld

Worth reading too — these show what an appeal has to overcome.
A 55-year-old female enrollee has requested debridement of extensive eczematous or infected skin (extensive peeling of the skin (code 11000)), pelvic ultrasound, transvaginal (code 76830), and prophylactic/therapeutic injection of estrogen (code 96372) for the treatment of her medical condition. Findings: The physician reviewer found that this patient received a variety of modalities for menopause relief. In terms of her therapy with compounded injectable and implantable estrogens, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology states, “The steroid hormones most commonly compounded include dehydroepiandrosterone, pregnenolone, testosterone, progesterone, estrone, estradiol, and estriol …..Most compounded products have not undergone any rigorous clinical testing for either safety or efficacy, and issues of quality assurance regarding the purity, potency, and quality of compounded produ…
Medical Necessity · 2009 · IMR MN09-10120
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: An enrollee has requested reimbursement for posterior tibial neurostimulation for treatment of the enrollee’s urinary urgency. Findings: The physician reviewers found that there is evidence in the peer-reviewed literature from randomized trials and prospective observational trials supporting the clinical utility and impact on patient management of posterior tibial neurostimulation in patients with urinary urgency and frequency, as in this case. However, most trials have a small number of patients with short term follow-up. American Urological Association guidelines recommend that clinicians should offer behavioral therapies, such as bladder training, bladder control strategies, pelvic floor muscle training and fluid management, as first-line therapy to all patients with overactive bladder.
Experimental/Investigational · 2017 · IMR EI17-25920

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 incontinence 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 incontinence? 35.8% won.

Explain my denial — freeStart my appeal · $39