Home / Conditions / Lumbar Facet Arthropathy
Lumbar Facet Arthropathy: when insurers say no, reviewers often say yes
In 13 published external-review decisions involving lumbar facet arthropathy, independent physician reviewers overturned the insurer’s denial 46.2% of the time.
Published decisions
13
2001–2026
Overturned
46.2%
6 denials reversed
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. | 10 | 40% |
Experimental/Investigational The plan called the treatment unproven. These turn on published evidence, so the appeal is a literature argument. | 3 | 66.7% |
Typical time to a decision
5 days
Most land between 3 and 12 days
Handled as urgent
61.5%
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 radiofrequency ablation.American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians evidence-based guidelines for interventional techniques state that the evidence for therapeutic facet joint interventions is good for conventional radiofrequency. A systemic review by Manchikanti and colleagues found that in the lumbar spine, for long-term effectiveness, there is Level II evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy. Researchers found that there was a reduction in pain 12 months post-procedure for patients with facet joint disease of the lumbar spine. Researchers found that radiofrequency ablation of the medial branch nerves for facet-mediated low back pain demonstrates clinical benefit for 6-12 months and possibly up to 2 years.
A 45-year-old male enrollee has requested left side neurotomy for treatment of his lumbar facet arthropathy and radiculopathy. Findings: The physician reviewer found that based on review of the available records, the facet block on the left L3-4, 4-5 and L5-S1 joints under fluoroscopy as well as the fluoroscopically guided rhizotomy of the left L3, 4, 5 and S1 medial and lateral branches done on the said date was medically necessary as part of an appropriate work-up consistent with the standard of care. In addition, the epidural injection CPT 62311 (with fluoroscopy 77003) on the date in question was done for what appeared to be reasonable suspicion of radicular impingement.
Where the denial was upheld
Worth reading too — these show what an appeal has to overcome.
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: The patient has requested authorization and coverage for platelet rich plasma injections. The guidelines on the use of biologics, including platelet rich plasma, for lumbar facet arthropathy note that at present, there is very little literature regarding the application of stem cells in the treatment of facet joint and sacroiliac joint pain. The further notes that a methodologic quality assessment of lumbar facet intraarticular injections reported that due to the limitations of three studies, a meta-analysis could not be performed.
Findings: The physician reviewer found that Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: The patient has requested authorization and coverage for platelet rich plasma (PRP) injections. The American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) guidelines on the use of biologics, including PRP, for lumbar facet arthropathy note that at present, there is very little literature regarding the application of stem cells in the treatment of facet joint and sacroiliac joint pain. The ASIPP further notes that a methodologic quality assessment of lumbar facet intraarticular injections reported that due to the limitations of three studies, a meta-analysis could not be performed.
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 lumbar facet arthropathy 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.