Home / Conditions / Self-injurious Behavior

Self-injurious Behavior: when insurers say no, reviewers often say yes

In 18 published external-review decisions involving self-injurious behavior, independent physician reviewers overturned the insurer’s denial 72.2% of the time.

Published decisions
18
2001–2026
Overturned
72.2%
13 denials reversed

Most-fought treatments for self-injurious behavior

What insurers denied — and how those fights ended.
CategoryDecisionsOverturned
Residential Treatment Center9
66.7%
Typical time to a decision
6 days
Most land between 3 and 21 days
Handled as urgent
50%
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 patient’s parent has requested reimbursement and prospective authorization and coverage for (1) inpatient hospitalization and (2) electroconvulsive therapy services (12 treatments).With regard to risk of harm, the records support a score of 5. The patient has an extreme risk of harm, due to a history of suicidal ideation, self-harm, and aggression towards others. During her hospitalization, she has been unable to go more than three days without the use of four-point restraints and no more than one day without self-harm or aggression towards others. In terms of functional status, the records support a score of 5. The documentation noted severe functional impairment as the patient struggles to complete her activities of daily living, including attending to her hygiene.
Medical Necessity · 2022 · IMR MN22-37262
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: The patient’s parent has requested reimbursement and prospective authorization and coverage for residential treatment center (RTC) services. Findings: The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) and American Association for Community Psychiatry (AACP) have unified the Child and Adolescent Level of Care Utilization System (CALOCUS) and the Child and Adolescent Service Intensity Instrument (CASII) into a single instrument, the Child and Adolescent Level of Care/Service Intensity Utilization System (CALOCUS-CASII). This instrument is a standardized tool used to determine the intensity of services needed for children and adolescents, 6-18 years of age, presenting with psychiatric, substance use, medical and/or developmental concerns.
Medical Necessity · 2023 · IMR MN23-39121

Where the denial was upheld

Worth reading too — these show what an appeal has to overcome.
Findings: The physician reviewer found that Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: The patient’s parent has requested reimbursement for residential treatment center (RTC) services. The Researchers have unified the Child and Adolescent Level of Care Utilization System (CALOCUS) and the Child and Adolescent Service Intensity Instrument (CASII) into a single instrument, the Child and Adolescent Level of Care/Service Intensity Utilization System (CALOCUS-CASII). This instrument is a standardized tool used to determine the intensity of services needed for children and adolescents, 6-18 years of age, presenting with psychiatric, substance use, medical and/or developmental concerns. Using CALOCUS-CASII, providers score patients on a scale of 1-5 using a six-pronged Dimensional Rating System.
Medical Necessity · 2023 · IMR MN23-40375
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: The patient’s parent has requested authorization and coverage for inpatient psychiatric hospital program with a complete medication wash and a psychiatric evaluation. The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) and American Association of Community Psychiatrists (AACP) have unified the Child and Adolescent Level of Care Utilization System (CALOCUS) and the Child and Adolescent Service Intensity Instrument (CASII) into a single instrument, the Child and Adolescent Level of Care/Service Intensity Utilization System (CALOCUS-CASII). This instrument provides a reliable framework for determining the appropriate level of care for adolescents needing mental health treatment. Using CALOCUS-CASII, providers score patients on a scale of 1-5 using a six-pronged Dimensional Rating System.
Medical Necessity · 2022 · IMR MN22-38028

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 self-injurious behavior 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 self-injurious behavior? 72.2% won.

Explain my denial — freeStart my appeal · $39