Home / Conditions / Malignant Tumor

Malignant Tumor: when insurers say no, reviewers often say yes

In 15 published external-review decisions involving malignant tumor, independent physician reviewers overturned the insurer’s denial 53.3% of the time.

Published decisions
15
2001–2026
Overturned
53.3%
8 denials reversed

Most-fought treatments for malignant tumor

What insurers denied — and how those fights ended.
CategoryDecisionsOverturned
Genetic Genomic Test4
75%

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.
8
75%
Medical Necessity
The plan said the care wasn’t medically necessary. The most common fight, and the most winnable.
6
16.7%
Typical time to a decision
7 days
Most land between 5 and 21 days
Handled as urgent
53.3%
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 reimbursement for Comprehensive genomic profiling test (FoundationOne CDx). As noted in the medical literature, the standard of care for patients with metastatic colon cancer includes testing for KRAS, NRAS, BRAF, HER2, and microsatellite instability (MSI). Per the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines, this testing can be performed individually or as part of next-generation sequencing, which has the ability to detect actionable mutations. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) recommends genetic testing on colon cancer tumors. Next-generation sequencing offers the advantage of identifying markers known to have targeted therapy as well as potential clinical trials. Given this patient’s metastatic disease, comprehensive molecular profiling was appropriate.
Experimental/Investigational · 2020 · IMR EI20-34206
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: The patient has requested reimbursement for urgent care services. Medical literature reports that irritant contact dermatitis is often caused by cumulative exposure to weak irritants, accounting for 80% of all cases of contact dermatitis, and may co-exist with atopic dermatitis and allergic contact dermatitis, with pruritus classically reported by these patients. Researchers note that systemic contact dermatitis refers to a skin condition where an individual who is cutaneously sensitized to an allergen will subsequently react to that same allergen or a cross reacting allergen via a different route. Per the authors, current treatment options include topical steroids and oral antihistamines for symptom relief and dietary avoidance to causative foods or metals. In this case, the patient presented with a pruritic rash.
Urgent Care · 2021 · IMR UR21-36418

Where the denial was upheld

Worth reading too — these show what an appeal has to overcome.
Findings: The physician reviewer found that Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: The patient has requested authorization and coverage for re-admission to inpatient skilled nursing facility level of care. Admission to a skilled nursing facility is appropriate for patients with conditions requiring observation, treatment plan evaluation, physician updating orders, and constantly available skilled nursing services. Skilled nursing services may include wound management, tracheostomy care, bowel and bladder training, tube feeding, and administering intravenous (IV) medications or medications that cannot be self-administered safely. Skilled nursing observation may include regularly monitoring vital signs, skin in the setting of wounds, and intake and output.
Medical Necessity · 2024 · IMR MN24-42334
Findings: The physician reviewer found that an enrollee with a diagnosis of locally advanced invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) of the left breast and nodal metastasis has requested reimbursement for the Guardant Reveal genomic blood test. The records indicate that this patient with breast cancer has a high risk of recurrence due to her nodal disease and hormone receptor negativity on pathology. Thus, close surveillance is warranted. However, there is a lack of data in the clinical medical literature and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines to support a role for plasma-based circulating tumor cell (CTC) assays, such as the Guardant Reveal, for use during routine surveillance. Per the NCCN guidelines, the clinical use of CTC or circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in metastatic breast cancer is not yet included in disease assessment and monitoring.
Experimental/Investigational · 2024 · IMR EI24-43059

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 malignant tumor 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 malignant tumor? 53.3% won.

Explain my denial — freeStart my appeal · $39