Home / Conditions / Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome

Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome: when insurers say no, reviewers often say yes

In 44 published external-review decisions involving postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, independent physician reviewers overturned the insurer’s denial 68.2% of the time.

Published decisions
44
2001–2026
Overturned
68.2%
30 denials reversed

Most-fought treatments for postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome

What insurers denied — and how those fights ended.
CategoryDecisionsOverturned
Autonomic Testing8
87.5%

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
Medical Necessity
The plan said the care wasn’t medically necessary. The most common fight, and the most winnable.
27
63%
Experimental/Investigational
The plan called the treatment unproven. These turn on published evidence, so the appeal is a literature argument.
17
76.5%
Typical time to a decision
18 days
Most land between 7 and 21 days
Handled as urgent
40.9%
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 enrollee requested coverage for Autonomic Nervous Function Test. The enrollee underwent autonomic nervous function testing after experiencing ongoing symptoms of dizziness, chest pain, dyspnea, tachycardia, near syncope and burning/tingling sensations. The documentation indicated she initially underwent a cardiac consultation complaining of three episodes of pre-syncope. The documentation detailed the enrollee has seen a pulmonologist and pulmonary function testing did not identify a reason for this. She has also seen gastroenterology and endocrinology. The physical examination did not reveal any significant abnormalities. The patient's laboratory studies were normal. An ECG showed normal sinus rhythm.
Experimental/Investigational · 2019 · IMR EI19-30969
Findings: The physician reviewer found that Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: An enrollee has requested reimbursement for a tilt table test. The records document that this patient presented to her provider with complaints of dizziness and palpitations. The patient is noted to have a history of Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and mast cell activation syndrome. Palpitations are sensations of a rapid or irregular heartbeat and are commonly caused by cardiac arrhythmias or anxiety, though there are many other causes as well. When palpitations are accompanied by dizziness, it is considered a more serious condition that requires further assessment. The patient underwent evaluation for unexplained symptoms of dizziness and palpitations with an echocardiogram, which was normal, and Zio monitor, which demonstrated abnormal atrial tachycardia.
Experimental/Investigational · 2023 · IMR EI23-40089

Where the denial was upheld

Worth reading too — these show what an appeal has to overcome.
The parent of a 16-year-old female enrollee requested: (1) neuro-ophthalmology referral; (2) panel for paraneoplastic antibodies including but not limited to anti-gangliocyte panel; (3) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the abdomen with and without contrast; (4) MRI of the cervical spine with and without contrast; (5) MRI of the chest with and without contrast; (6) MRI of the lumbar spine with and without contrast; (7) MRI of the thoracic spine with and without contrast; (8) XR modified barium swallow with an occupational therapist (OT) or speech language pathologist (SLP); (9) motion fluoroscopic evaluation; swallow function; cine/video recording; and (10) swallowing function with cineradiography or videography, for medical evaluation and/or treatment of the enrollee’s dysautonomia, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) and autonomic neuropathy.
Medical Necessity · 2014 · IMR MN14-18613
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: An enrollee has requested authorization and coverage for IVIG therapy.The submitted clinical documentation does not support that IVIG therapy is medically necessary for the patient. There are no visit notes demonstrating how diagnoses of mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), Ehlers-Danlos syndrome or postural hypotension syndrome (POTS) were made. All of the patient’s submitted mast cell studies were normal and the records fail to demonstrate evidence of mast cell activation syndrome.
Medical Necessity · 2019 · IMR MN19-31282

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 postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome 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 postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome? 68.2% won.

Explain my denial — freeStart my appeal · $39