Home / Conditions / Knee Problem
Knee Problem: when insurers say no, reviewers often say yes
In 492 published external-review decisions involving knee problem, independent physician reviewers overturned the insurer’s denial 39.2% of the time.
Published decisions
492
2001–2026
Overturned
39.2%
193 denials reversed
Most-fought treatments for knee problem
What insurers denied — and how those fights ended.
| Category | Decisions | Overturned |
|---|---|---|
| MRI | 53 | 30.2% |
| CPM Machine | 51 | 45.1% |
| Braces | 36 | 38.9% |
| Knee Replacement | 33 | 30.3% |
| Arthritis Rx | 29 | 51.7% |
| Physical Therapy | 18 | 33.3% |
| Pain Medication | 15 | 60% |
| Steroid Injection | 10 | 80% |
| Analgesics | 9 | 33.3% |
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. | 386 | 43.5% |
Experimental/Investigational The plan called the treatment unproven. These turn on published evidence, so the appeal is a literature argument. | 97 | 21.6% |
Urgent Care Expedited reviews, decided in days rather than weeks. | 9 | 44.4% |
Typical time to a decision
19 days
Most land between 10 and 21 days
Handled as urgent
17.7%
Expedited when a delay would cause harm
Recent direction
Rising
30.4% → 55.7% 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
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: An enrollee has requested authorization and coverage for bilateral Euflexxa injections for treatment of the enrollee’s chronic bilateral knee pain. Findings: The physician reviewer found that Evidence based medical peer reviewed literature supports the use of repeat viscosupplementation injections for the treatment of pain in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Bannuru and colleagues concluded that hyaluronic acid was the best pharmacologic intervention for knee osteoarthritis in their meta-analysis of 137 studies with 33,243 participants. Hyaluronic acid was found to be better than injected placebo or injected corticosteroids.
Physician 1: The patient is a 35-year-old woman status post multiple surgeries on her left knee. She reinjured her knee in August 2005 and now has a large lesion in the cartilage of the left lateral condyle. The patient’s provider recommends autologous chondrocyte implantation to repair the defect. The patient’s request for authorization was denied by the Health Plan based on a determination that the procedure is experimental/investigational.Autologous chondrocyte implantation has been FDA approved for almost ten years. The procedure has been utilized extensively in both Europe and the United States. This patient is young and active and chondrocyte implantation offers her the best outcome. Successful implantation will cover the defect and prevent further deterioration thus avoiding traumatic arthritis and knee replacement. No long-term safety issues have been identified.
Where the denial was upheld
Worth reading too — these show what an appeal has to overcome.
Physician #1: The patient is a 61-year-old male with left knee chondromalacia. He is requesting reimbursement for an articular cartilage paste grafting procedure that was performed in November 2005. The Health Plan has denied coverage for the procedure at issue citing a lack of peer-reviewed literature supporting its use.There is no class I data to support the use of this procedure for knee osteochondral defects. The procedure remains experimental at this time. There is insufficient evidence that articular cartilage paste grafting is efficacious in this clinical setting. Furthermore, there were alternative standard procedures available for this patient’s condition. Therefore, I have determined that the procedure at issue was not likely to be more beneficial for treatment of the patient’s medical condition than any available standard therapy.
Physician 1: The patient is a 26-year-old female who is post anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair. She is experiencing pain and loss of motion and is unable to obtain relief with standard treatment modalities. Her provider has recommended she undergo an osteochondral allograft procedure. The Health Plan has denied this request on the basis that the requested procedure is considered investigational.There is no literature regarding the use of osteochondral allograft for focal defects of the knee after ACL reconstruction surgery. This patient now has established arthritis. Allografting the cartilage defects is not likely to be successful in this clinical setting. Given the lack of scientific data, the efficacy of the requested procedure remains unproven at this time and therefore, it cannot be recommended.
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 knee 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.