Metastatic Breast Cancer denials in California external review

In the California DMHC record, independent physician reviewers decided 82 published external-review cases involving metastatic breast cancerand overturned the plan’s denial in 50%. That is a historical result among cases that reached this program, not a forecast for an individual appeal.

California DMHC decisions
82
2002–2025
Overturned
50%
41 denials reversed

Most-fought treatments for metastatic breast cancer

What insurers denied — and how those fights ended.
TreatmentDecisionsOverturned
Avastin13
23.1%

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.
51
45.1%
Medical Necessity
The plan said the care wasn’t medically necessary. The most common fight, and the most winnable.
31
58.1%
Typical time to a decision
8 days
Most land between 5 and 18 days
Handled as urgent
64.6%
Expedited when a delay would cause harm
Recent direction
Rising
45.5%91.7% 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

Physician 1This patient is a 53-year-old female who has breast cancer metastatic to her lungs. She is status post multiple chemotherapeutic regimens. She is currently stable. She has requested authorization for positron emission tomography (PET) scanning to monitor her clinical situation. The Health Plan has denied the patient’s request on the basis that PET scanning is considered investigational for this indication.The patient has metastatic breast cancer, status post resection and has undergone multiple courses of chemotherapy. She requires careful follow-up for evidence of recurrence. Multiple modalities exist including PET and CT scans. PET scanning has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in cases of breast cancer. Given that the patient has been utilizing PET scanning to follow recurrence/response, she should remain with the current modality.
Experimental/Investigational · 2004 · IMR EI04-3744
Physician 1: The patient is a 47-year-old female who was first diagnosed with breast cancer in 1998. She was initially treated with adjuvant chemotherapy including Adriamycin, Cytoxan, and Taxol. This was followed by five years of tamoxifen. In 2004 the patient was found to have bone metastases and was treated with other hormonal therapies. In April 2006 she was found to have progressive disease in bone, and liver and her oncologist recommended treatment with Taxol and Avastin. The provider’s request for authorization was denied as the Health Plan has deemed the therapy experimental/ investigational in this clinical context.Avastin is within a class of new drugs that presumably inhibit angiogenesis. It has been approved for use in combination with chemotherapy in several types of cancer. There is essentially only one applicable study in metastatic breast cancer.
Experimental/Investigational · 2006 · IMR EI06-5482

Where the denial was upheld

Worth reading too — these show what an appeal has to overcome.
Physician 1: The patient is a 49-year-old woman who received Taxane-based neoadjuvant therapy prior to mastectomy (pathologic and clinical response not provided) in 2003 and relapsed with lung metastasis six months later. Her lung was resected and she then received “adjuvant” chemotherapy with another taxane-based three-drug combination regimen. The patient had a second lung recurrence two months after her last dose of chemotherapy. She has now been started on a four-drug combination regimen that includes Avastin, Xeloda, Abraxane and Tarceva.
Experimental/Investigational · 2005 · IMR EI05-5027
Physician 1: This patient is a 57-year-old female apparently first diagnosed with breast cancer in 1989 and treated with surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy of unknown types. In 2000, she had a local recurrence and was treated with mastectomy and hormonal therapy. In 2003, she was found to have bone metastases. Additional chemotherapy of unknown type was given. The patient was seen in June 2005 by another oncologist who noted that she was stable on a combination of two chemotherapy drugs, Abraxane and Xeloda. The extent of her disease and its responsiveness to the combination therapy are unclear.It has been recommended that Avastin be added to her current regimen. This has been denied by the Health Plan as investigational.The patient is a 57-year-old woman with reported bone-only metastatic breast cancer.
Experimental/Investigational · 2005 · IMR EI05-4815

Figures and quotations on this page come from 42,749 published decisions in the California DMHC Independent Medical Review dataset. These are California external-review outcomes. Other state and federal programs have different eligibility rules, processes, and current availability; the rates here do not transfer to those programs or predict an individual result. 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 describe eligible cases completed through California DMHC’s Independent Medical Review program. They do not estimate the chance that an internal appeal, an external review in another jurisdiction, or your individual case will succeed. Use the record to identify evidence patterns involving metastatic breast cancer, then check the rights and deadlines that apply to your plan.

SOURCE: CALIFORNIA DMHC INDEPENDENT MEDICAL REVIEW OUTCOMES (CHHS OPEN DATA) · AGGREGATES + DEIDENTIFIED DECISION EXCERPTS/REFERENCE IDS · 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 metastatic breast cancer? Use the California record to prepare.

Explain my denial — freeStart my appeal · $39