Psoriasis denials in California external review

In the California DMHC record, independent physician reviewers decided 225 published external-review cases involving psoriasisand overturned the plan’s denial in 68.9%. That is a historical result among cases that reached this program, not a forecast for an individual appeal.

California DMHC decisions
225
2002–2026
Overturned
68.9%
155 denials reversed

Most-fought treatments for psoriasis

What insurers denied — and how those fights ended.
TreatmentDecisionsOverturned
Otezla49
55.1%
Skyrizi26
100%
Cosentyx18
72.2%
Enbrel16
68.8%
Apremilast13
61.5%

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.
218
70.2%
Experimental/Investigational
The plan called the treatment unproven. These turn on published evidence, so the appeal is a literature argument.
6
33.3%
Typical time to a decision
19 days
Most land between 9 and 21 days
Handled as urgent
19.1%
Expedited when a delay would cause harm
Recent direction
Rising
73%98.2% 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

Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: A patient has requested authorization and coverage for Cosentyx injectables 150 mg, two times subcutaneous on week 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4. The Health Plan has denied this request indicating that the requested medication regimen is not medically necessary for treatment of the patient’s psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis. The submitted documentation supports the medical necessity of the requested medication regimen. The American College of Rheumatology does not currently have any national guidelines for the U.S. regarding the recommendations for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA).
Medical Necessity · 2018 · IMR MN18-28812
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: The patient has been diagnosed with psoriasis. Previously, the patient reported a rash on her arms, back, genital area, and scalp which had been present for three months. The provider noted psoriasiform plaques were present over the patient’s scalp, lower back, right thumb, and bilateral elbows. Otezla samples were provided to the patient. Later, the provider noted psoriasiform plaques on the patient’s scalp, low back, right thumb, and bilateral elbows had improved by 30% while taking Otezla. The provider noted that the patient is not a candidate for treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDS) or phototherapy. The patient had failed treatment with betamethasone, mometasone, and Eucrisa. The provider also noted the patient showed improvement with no adverse effects after eight weeks of treatment with Otezla.
Medical Necessity · 2019 · IMR MN19-31665

Where the denial was upheld

Worth reading too — these show what an appeal has to overcome.
The enrollee is requesting authorization and coverage for the medication, Siliq 210 mg/1.5 ml. The enrollee has a 35-year history of psoriasis and of Hepatitis B-positive serology. He is being followed by a hepatologist and takes lamivudine, 150mg, as prophylaxis while on biologic therapy. The psoriasis is present on fifteen percent of his body surface area (BSA). He has large erythematous patches with silvery scales on his lower extremities. His fingernails show irregular pitting. He was treated with Humira for twenty months, but the provider documents a failed response to this treatment. The record indicates the enrollee has also failed treatment with topical steroids, phototherapy, Chinese medicine, acitretin and cyclosporine. Given the lack of positive response to previous medications, treatment choice has been taken into careful consideration by the provider.
Medical Necessity · 2019 · IMR MN19-31743
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: The patient was diagnosed with psoriasis. The provider noted extensive plaque psoriasis to the patient’s scalp, trunk, groin, and extremities which was noted to be chronic and worsening with a body surface area of 20%. The Health Plan Prescription Drug Prior Authorization or Step Therapy Exception Request Form noted the patient had trialed and failed treatment with Stelara and topical steroids. The provider has recommended Cosentyx for the patient. The health plan has denied this request indicating that the requested medication Cosentyx is not medically necessary for the treatment of this patient. The submitted documentation does not support that the requested medication is medically necessary.
Medical Necessity · 2022 · IMR MN22-37710

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 psoriasis, 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 psoriasis? Use the California record to prepare.

Explain my denial — freeStart my appeal · $39