Home / Conditions / Lipid Storage Dis
Lipid Storage Dis: when insurers say no, reviewers often say yes
In 12 published external-review decisions involving lipid storage dis, independent physician reviewers overturned the insurer’s denial 16.7% of the time.
Published decisions
12
2001–2026
Overturned
16.7%
2 denials reversed
Most-fought treatments for lipid storage dis
What insurers denied — and how those fights ended.
| Category | Decisions | Overturned |
|---|---|---|
| Liposuction | 3 | 66.7% |
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. | 8 | 25% |
Experimental/Investigational The plan called the treatment unproven. These turn on published evidence, so the appeal is a literature argument. | 4 | 0% |
Typical time to a decision
21 days
Most land between 15 and 21 days
Handled as urgent
16.7%
Expedited when a delay would cause harm
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 liposuction of both legs for treatment of the enrollee’s leg swelling and not reconstructive in nature. Findings: The physician reviewer found that consistent with lipedema of the lower extremities without evidence of lymphedema. The patient has undergone extensive conservative management, including compression wrapping, physical therapy, successful weight loss and extremity massage. Her lipedema has been noted to have adversely affected her function with chronic pain and difficulty with ambulation. Liposuction is a well-known therapy for lipodystrophy and has been shown to provide possible functional improvement in lipedema. As noted by Rudkin and colleagues, lipedema is distinct from lymphedema.
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: An enrollee has requested authorization and coverage for suction assisted lipectomy. The submitted documentation supports the medical necessity of the requested services. The records document evidence of lipedema of the lower extremities complicated by secondary lymphedema. She is well-documented to have undergone extensive conservative management. Her lipedema has been noted to have adversely affected her function, with chronic pain. Photographs support the abnormal lower extremity enlargement consistent with her diagnosis. Liposuction is a well-known therapy for lipodystrophy and has been shown to provide functional improvement in lipedema. The medical evidence supports the requested services in this clinical setting. Therefore, suction assisted lipectomy is medically necessary for the treatment of this patient.
Where the denial was upheld
Worth reading too — these show what an appeal has to overcome.
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: An enrollee has requested lymphatic sparing liposuction surgery for treatment of her medical condition. Findings: The physician reviewer found that the request for lymphatic sparing liposuction surgery for both arms is not medically necessary for treatment of the patient’s medical condition. The patient presents with well-documented evidence of lipedema which has affected her function with chronic pain and difficulty with ambulation. However, this has mainly affected her lower extremities. The patient had undergone water-assisted liposuction of the lower extremities on two separate occasions. The second surgery was complicated by deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism.
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: An enrollee has requested reimbursement for advanced lipoprotein testing (CPT codes 82172 and 83704) for evaluation of the enrollee’s hyperlipidemia. Findings: The physician reviewers found that based on the documentation provided for review, the patient presents with some coronary risk including hyperlipidemia. In this circumstance guidelines for the management of cardiac risk and dyslipidemia have been established, are periodically updated by expert committees and are endorsed by several national organizations.
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 lipid storage dis 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.