Non-suicidal Self-injury: when insurers say no, reviewers often say yes
In 13 published external-review decisions involving non-suicidal self-injury, independent physician reviewers overturned the insurer’s denial 69.2% of the time.
Most-fought treatments for non-suicidal self-injury
| Category | Decisions | Overturned |
|---|---|---|
| Residential Treatment Center | 5 | 60% |
Where the denial was overturned
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: The patient’s parent has requested reimbursement and prospective authorization and coverage for residential treatment center (RTC) services. The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the American Association of Community Psychiatrists Child and Adolescent Level of Care Utilization System (CALOCUS) provides a reliable framework for determining the appropriate level of care for adolescents needing mental health treatment. Using CALOCUS, providers score patients on a scale of 1-5 using a six-pronged Dimensional Rating System. The six dimensions include: (1) risk of harm; (2) functional status; (3) developmental, medical, substance use and psychiatric comorbidity; (4) recovery environment (a. stressors and b. supports); (5) treatment and recovery history; and (6) engagement.
Findings: The physician reviewer found that Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: The patient has requested authorization and coverage for a return to partial hospitalization program (PHP). The American Association of Community Psychiatrists Level of Care Utilization System (LOCUS) provides a reliable framework for determining the appropriate level of care for adults needing mental health treatment. Using LOCUS, providers score patients on a scale of 1-5 using a six-pronged Dimensional Rating System. The six dimensions include: (1) risk of harm; (2) functional status; (3) medical, addictive and psychiatric comorbidity; (4) recovery environment (a. stressors and b. supports); (5) treatment and recovery history; and (6) engagement. The composite score is then used to determine the level of care needed. For dimension 1, with regard to risk of harm, the records support a score of 4.
Where the denial was upheld
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: The patient’s parent has requested reimbursement for psychiatric residential treatment center (RTC) services. The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) and American Association for Community Psychiatry (AACP) have unified the Child and Adolescent Level of Care Utilization System (CALOCUS) and the Child and Adolescent Service Intensity Instrument (CASII) into a single instrument, the Child and Adolescent Level of Care/Service Intensity Utilization System (CALOCUS-CASII). This instrument is a standardized tool used to determine the intensity of services needed for children and adolescents, 6-18 years of age, presenting with psychiatric, substance use, medical and/or developmental concerns. Using CALOCUS-CASII, providers score patients on a scale of 1-5 using a six-pronged Dimensional Rating System.
The parent of a 17-year-old female enrollee requested mental health residential treatment center services for treatment of the enrollee’s behavioral health conditions. Findings: The physician reviewer found that the medical records indicate that the patient was cooperative with her treatment and processed information well. She was not noted to be suicidal or homicidal. She had two episodes of cutting during the month of treatment. In each case, she was able to process the information in group and individual therapy and understand the stressors that led her to her decision to cut. She did not exhibit any behavior problems other than these two incidents that would have required 24-hour medical or nursing care, and on these two occasions, the staff did not directly witness the event or intervene.
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.
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 non-suicidal self-injury 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