Home / Conditions / Relapsing Remitting Multiple Sclerosis

Relapsing Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: when insurers say no, reviewers often say yes

In 79 published external-review decisions involving relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis, independent physician reviewers overturned the insurer’s denial 79.7% of the time.

Published decisions
79
2001–2026
Overturned
79.7%
63 denials reversed

Most-fought treatments for relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis

What insurers denied — and how those fights ended.
CategoryDecisionsOverturned
Kesimpta10
100%
Tecfidera6
83.3%
Tysabri5
100%
H.p. Acthar Gel4
75%

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.
69
85.5%
Experimental/Investigational
The plan called the treatment unproven. These turn on published evidence, so the appeal is a literature argument.
10
40%
Typical time to a decision
7 days
Most land between 4 and 15 days
Handled as urgent
55.7%
Expedited when a delay would cause harm
Recent direction
Rising
86.7%100% 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: The patient has requested authorization and coverage for Kesimpta. The American Academy of Neurology (AAN) practice guideline recommendations for disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for adults with multiple sclerosis note that as numerous studies of DMTs in patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis who have had recent relapses or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) activity, or both, have shown a benefit with DMT in terms of reducing relapses and reducing MRI activity, clinicians should offer DMTs to patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis with recent clinical relapses or MRI activity. The guidelines further note that when a patient shows breakthrough disease activity, such as continued relapses and/or MRI activity, trying a medication with a different mechanism or efficacy profile may be beneficial.
Medical Necessity · 2024 · IMR MN24-41605
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: The patient has been diagnosed with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. The records noted that recent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) demonstrated multiple subcortical and periventricular white matter lesions and a single tiny enhancing lesion in the right cerebellar white matter, radiologically suspicious for multiple sclerosis. The MRI was initially done because of symptoms of hearing loss and intermittent tinnitus. The provider noted that a lumbar puncture confirmed findings consistent with multiple sclerosis with 12 oligoclonal bands in the cerebrospinal fluid. The patient reported right hand/forearm numbness and tingling that began two to three years prior. The provider noted that the patient was John Cunningham (JC) virus antibody negative.
Medical Necessity · 2020 · IMR MN20-33153

Where the denial was upheld

Worth reading too — these show what an appeal has to overcome.
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: An enrollee has requested authorization and coverage for power wheelchair accessories including sit to stand features. This patient presents with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis. Per the provider, the patient’s condition has progressed, and she is unstable for transfers. The provider has recommended a power wheelchair with elevation seat system and power stander to enable her to safely perform activities of daily living and improve bilateral lower extremity swelling. There is a lack of evidence demonstrating that use of a power stander feature equipped on a power wheelchair provides clinically significant benefits with respect to health or functional outcomes in the setting of neurological weakness due to multiple sclerosis or other conditions impairing the active ability to stand.
Experimental/Investigational · 2020 · IMR EI20-34069
Findings: The physician reviewer found that Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: The patient has requested authorization and coverage for Mavenclad. At issue is whether the requested Mavenclad is medically necessary for the treatment of this patient. According to guideline recommendations, multiple studies have shown the benefit of disease-modifying therapy (DMT) in terms of reducing relapses and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) activity in patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis who have had recent relapses and/or MRI activity. The guidelines state that providers should offer DMT to patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis with recent clinical relapses or MRI activity. The U.S.
Medical Necessity · 2023 · IMR MN23-39443

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 relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis 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 relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis? 79.7% won.

Explain my denial — freeStart my appeal · $39