Home / Conditions / Oppositional Defiant Disorder
Oppositional Defiant Disorder: when insurers say no, reviewers often say yes
In 86 published external-review decisions involving oppositional defiant disorder, independent physician reviewers overturned the insurer’s denial 43% of the time.
Published decisions
86
2001–2026
Overturned
43%
37 denials reversed
Most-fought treatments for oppositional defiant disorder
What insurers denied — and how those fights ended.
| Treatment | Decisions | Overturned |
|---|---|---|
| Residential Treatment | 21 | 33.3% |
| Residential Treatment Center | 16 | 56.2% |
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. | 80 | 45% |
Experimental/Investigational The plan called the treatment unproven. These turn on published evidence, so the appeal is a literature argument. | 4 | 25% |
Typical time to a decision
20 days
Most land between 10 and 23 days
Handled as urgent
23.3%
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: The patient’s parent has requested reimbursement for residential treatment center (RTC) services. Findings: The physician reviewer found that 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.
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: The patient’s parent has requested authorization and coverage for intensive family-focused therapy twice per week. 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.
Where the denial was upheld
Worth reading too — these show what an appeal has to overcome.
Findings: The physician reviewer found that The patient has requested reimbursement for 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.
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: The parent of a patient has requested reimbursement for the residential treatment center services in the wilderness setting from 4/10/17 through 7/11/17. The Health Plan has denied this request indicating that the services at issue were not medically necessary for treatment of the patient’s behavioral health condition. The submitted documentation does not support the medical necessity of the services at issue. On 4/10/17, the patient presented to the wilderness program with a history of oppositional defiant disorder, parent child relational problem, sibling relational problem, and cannabis use disorder. The records noted that during treatment, the patient was cooperative, calm, and insightful into this patient’s psychological needs. The progress notes did not indicate that the patient had psychosis, paranoia or mania symptoms.
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 oppositional defiant disorder 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.