Receptive And Expressive Language Delay denials in California external review

In the California DMHC record, independent physician reviewers decided 14 published external-review cases involving receptive and expressive language delayand overturned the plan’s denial in 78.6%. That is a historical result among cases that reached this program, not a forecast for an individual appeal.

California DMHC decisions
14
2005–2019
Overturned
78.6%
11 denials reversed

Most-fought treatments for receptive and expressive language delay

What insurers denied — and how those fights ended.
TreatmentDecisionsOverturned
Speech Therapy12
83.3%
Typical time to a decision
18 days
Most land between 13 and 22 days

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 was diagnosed with receptive and expressive language delays. The records noted that the patient does not have any meaningful words. She waved and clapped appropriately. The provider noted that speech therapy was not recommended due to the patient’s limited ability to participate in therapy in a one-on-one clinical setting. The patient’s parent has requested coverage for speech therapy. The Health Plan denied the request and reported the requested services are not medically necessary for the treatment of this patient. At issue in this case is whether the requested speech therapy is medically necessary for treatment of the patient’s medical condition. The patient was described as shaking her head for “no” and using symbolic gestures. She babbled, waved and clapped appropriately.
Medical Necessity · 2019 · IMR MN19-31011
The parent of a two-year-old male enrollee has requested authorization and coverage for speech therapy, at a frequency of two times per week for treatment of the enrollee’s receptive and expressive language delay. Findings: The physician reviewer found that the current medical evidence supports the requested therapy in this patient’s case. Per Nelson and colleagues, speech and language development is considered by experts to be a useful indicator of a child’s overall development and cognitive ability and is related to school success. The authors noted that identification of children at risk for developmental delay or related problems may lead to intervention services and family assistance at a young age when chances for improvement are best. Speech and language delay must be taken seriously in young children, because the long-term consequences may be substantial.
Medical Necessity · 2012 · IMR MN12-13659

Where the denial was upheld

Worth reading too — these show what an appeal has to overcome.
This patient is a 25-month-old female with a history of global developmental delay, esotropia, ptosis, hyperopia, and hypotonia. She is status post a strabismus surgery and surgery to correct the ptosis. She wears glasses. She also has severe receptive and expressive language delays. The patient has been receiving speech therapy since April 2006. At issue is whether speech therapy is medically necessary for the patient’s developmental delays.Review of the relevant literature reveals no evidence to support that the patient’s vision issues are or can be a direct cause of speech delay. Rather, it appears the speech delay is part of a constellation of deficits associated with global developmental delay.
Medical Necessity · 2006 · IMR MN06-5956
This patient is a five-year-old male with a diagnosis of autism accompanied by receptive and expressive language delays. He received speech therapy and auditory processing therapy from April 2005 through November 2005. The patient’s parent has requested reimbursement for the cost of the auditory processing therapy. The Health Plan denied the request based on a determination that the therapy was not medically necessary for treatment of the patient’s receptive and expressive language delays.I have reviewed the available literature including a Cochrane review of auditory integration training (AIT). There is no evidence of functional benefit with AIT and the available data does not support the application of the therapy.
Medical Necessity · 2006 · IMR MN06-5463

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 receptive and expressive language delay, 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 receptive and expressive language delay? Use the California record to prepare.

Explain my denial — freeStart my appeal · $9