Sev Emot Disturb denials in California external review

In the California DMHC record, independent physician reviewers decided 14 published external-review cases involving sev emot disturband overturned the plan’s denial in 42.9%. That is a historical result among cases that reached this program, not a forecast for an individual appeal.

California DMHC decisions
14
2003–2017
Overturned
42.9%
6 denials reversed

Most-fought treatments for sev emot disturb

What insurers denied — and how those fights ended.
CategoryDecisionsOverturned
RTC Admit5
60%
Typical time to a decision
19 days
Most land between 11 and 21 days
Handled as urgent
28.6%
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

The patient is a 17-year-old male referred for residential treatment due to increasingly aggressive behavior at school. Other behaviors included extensive use of marijuana and alcohol beginning at age 11, threatening to make bombs, threatening to shoot people, thievery, and sexual deviance. The latter consisted of bestiality, manipulation of peers to engage in sexual acts and sexual intimidation towards his sister. There is a 2001 report, which cites direct sexual abuse by his older brother on at least four to five occasions, as well as the observation of the brother forcing his sister to engage in sexual acts.
Medical Necessity · 2005 · IMR MN05-4905
The parent of an 18-year-old male enrollee has requested residential treatment center services for treatment of the enrollee’s serious emotional disturbance. Findings: The physician reviewer found that this patient with a history of multiple behavioral problems including: major depressive disorder, recurrent, severe, in partial remission, polysubstance dependence including hallucinogens, cannabis and opiates, conduct disorder, parent-child relational problems, tic disorder not otherwise specified (NOS), anxiety disorder NOS and personality disorder NOS including narcissistic, antisocial and schizotypal was placed in the residential treatment facility for control of his behaviors which had previously been difficult to manage.
Medical Necessity · 2011 · IMR MN11-13072

Where the denial was upheld

Worth reading too — these show what an appeal has to overcome.
The parent of a 15-year-old male has requested coverage for past residential treatment level of care services for treatment of his behavioral health issues. Findings: The physician reviewer found that due to multiple factors and unique considerations, determination of the appropriate level of care for patients with inattention, impulsivity, disobedience, and mood symptoms coupled with strained family dynamics and budding characteristics is a challenging endeavor. Clinical guidelines and patient placement criteria have been developed to assist care providers with the complex determination process. Regarding this patient’s case, the documentation provided fails to demonstrate that the patient could not consolidate meaningful treatment gains in a less restrictive level of care.
Medical Necessity · 2012 · IMR MN12-14555
The patient is a 14-year-old female with a recent history of risky behavior. She has been exhibiting acting out behaviors since the age of 10. She has a history of running away from home and drug and alcohol abuse. Recently, the patient was placed on a 5150 psychiatric hold after she assaulted a family friend who attempted to prevent her from running away. On 7/16/04, the patient was admitted to a residential psychiatric treatment facility. The submitted treatment notes indicate the patient is not suicidal. On 8/10/04, the patient’s psychiatrist noted there was no need for psychotropic medication. A request has been made for continued residential psychiatric treatment services.
Medical Necessity · 2004 · IMR MN04-3822

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 sev emot disturb, 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 sev emot disturb? Use the California record to prepare.

Explain my denial — freeStart my appeal · $9