Self-injurious Behavior denials in California external review
In the California DMHC record, independent physician reviewers decided 18 published external-review cases involving self-injurious behaviorand overturned the plan’s denial in 72.2%. That is a historical result among cases that reached this program, not a forecast for an individual appeal.
Most-fought treatments for self-injurious behavior
| Category | Decisions | Overturned |
|---|---|---|
| Residential Treatment Center | 9 | 66.7% |
What the reviewers wrote
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.
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.
Where the denial was upheld
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.
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.
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 self-injurious behavior, 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