Resp Allergies denials in California external review
In the California DMHC record, independent physician reviewers decided 49 published external-review cases involving resp allergiesand overturned the plan’s denial in 55.1%. That is a historical result among cases that reached this program, not a forecast for an individual appeal.
Most-fought treatments for resp allergies
| Category | Decisions | Overturned |
|---|---|---|
| Tx For Allergies | 16 | 68.8% |
| Allergy Rx | 9 | 66.7% |
| Anti-histamines | 4 | 75% |
| Allergy Testing | 3 | 0% |
What the insurer actually argued
| Reason given | Decisions | Overturned |
|---|---|---|
Medical Necessity The plan said the care wasn’t medically necessary. The most common fight, and the most winnable. | 38 | 65.8% |
Experimental/Investigational The plan called the treatment unproven. These turn on published evidence, so the appeal is a literature argument. | 9 | 11.1% |
What the reviewers wrote
Where the denial was overturned
The patient is a 50-year-old male with a history of chronic sinusitis. He had maxillary advancement surgery in 1982. There is a questioned history of Caldwell-Luc sinus surgery in 1990. In 1992, the patient underwent right-sided functional endoscopic sinus surgery. In 2000, he continued with chronic sinusitis symptoms. Medical therapy has included allergy shots, multiple nasal steroid sprays, Atrovent, Astelin, Singulair, multiple oral antihistamines, oral steroids, Kenalog injections, in addition to multiple antibiotics. The patient subsequently underwent revisional functional endoscopic sinus surgery, septoplasty, and turbinate reduction surgery. Despite multiple surgical interventions and aggressive medical therapy he still continues to experience episodes of sinusitis. He was treated with a course of Rocephin in 2002.
The patient is a 57-year-old male with moderate to severe allergic asthma and chronic sinusitis, with seasonal and year-round allergies. He has tried various medications but has been unresponsive to standard medical treatments. His lung function tests revealed a low FEV1.The patient underwent skin testing in 1997 with positive results to trees, grasses and weeds. His IgE level was reported as 39.1 IU/ml in May 1997. The patient’s current medications include Advair, Singulair, Flonase, Nexium, Zyrtec, Optivar, and Duratuss. He has also received a variety of other medications, including inhaled corticosteroids, theophylline and long-acting beta-agonists. Review of progress notes indicate the patient was taking 20mg prednisone in April 2002, indicating severe steroid dependency.
Where the denial was upheld
Findings: The physician reviewer found that Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: An enrollee’s parent has requested reimbursement for allergy tests (immunoassay for allergy or toxicity and IgG food test). The patient’s provider recommended evaluation with testing as part of the treatment protocol within the tolerance induction program (TIP). The TIP is a form of oral immunotherapy (OIT), which is still in the early stages of development and still requires further investigations to optimize protocols and improve safety. The potential therapeutic benefits of OIT must be carefully considered in light of the significant potential for adverse events, including oropharyngeal, respiratory, or gastrointestinal symptoms.
Findings: The physician reviewer found that Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: The patient requested Cromolyn Sodium for the treatment of postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) and newly diagnosed mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS).Based on the clinical documentation for review, the requested cromolyn sodium is not medically necessary for the treatment of the patient’s POTS or MACS conditions. A study indicated that the symptoms associated with MCAS can be managed by blockade of mediator receptors with H1 and H2 antihistamines or leukotriene receptor blockade, inhibition of mediator synthesis with aspirin or zileuton, mediator release with cromolyn sodium, anti-immunoglobulin therapy, or a combination of these approaches. The provider letter dated 04/11/23 does indicate a diagnosis of MACS and that the patient utilizes cromolyn sodium.
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.
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 resp allergies, 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