Home / Conditions / Stuttering

Stuttering: when insurers say no, reviewers often say yes

In 16 published external-review decisions involving stuttering, independent physician reviewers overturned the insurer’s denial 56.3% of the time.

Published decisions
16
2001–2026
Overturned
56.3%
9 denials reversed

Most-fought treatments for stuttering

What insurers denied — and how those fights ended.
TreatmentDecisionsOverturned
Speech Therapy13
61.5%
Typical time to a decision
21 days
Most land between 20 and 23 days
What the reviewers wrote
Excerpts from the independent reviewers’ published findings — the actual reasoning, quoted, not summarised.

Where the denial was overturned

The parent of an 11-year-old male enrollee has requested speech therapy for treatment of the enrollee’s stuttering disorder. Findings: The physician reviewer found that despite years of community and school based speech therapy the patient continues to stutter. The patient’s speech therapist reported a 70% speech dsyfluency and the child psychiatrist assessed the patient as a stutterer. Intensive speech therapy is necessary to prevent stuttering from becoming a lifelong disability. Based on an extensive survey of children in North Carolina, spontaneous remission from stuttering is the exception not the rule, and that the chance of recovery from stuttering diminishes with age (Kalinowski, et al). Without intensive speech therapy this nearly 12 year-old patient has little chance of improvement from stuttering.
Medical Necessity · 2013 · IMR MN13-14896
The parent of a four-year-old male enrollee has requested speech therapy for the treatment of the enrollee’s speech disorder. Findings: The physician reviewer found that this patient is a young preschool-aged child with neuro-oral-muscular dis-coordination resulting in a severe stuttering disorder. Some theorists consider stuttering to be the result of subtle neuron-physical dysfunctions resulting in disruption of the precision needed to produce speech. Stuttering, or speech dysfluency may be divided into developmental stuttering, neurogenic stuttering that results from neurological problems, and psychogenic stuttering that occurs following psychological trauma. Up to 80% of children who experience developmental dysfluency, or mild pathologic dysfluency, recover spontaneously. However, a certain number of children deteriorate, developing severe dysfluency.
Medical Necessity · 2009 · IMR MN09-9229

Where the denial was upheld

Worth reading too — these show what an appeal has to overcome.
A 37-year-old male enrollee has requested for the Fluency Master for treatment of his speech pathology. Findings: Three physician reviewers found that the Fluency Master is an electronic device that uses a technology called altered auditory feedback (AAF). According to the manufacturer, the device fosters “better hearing of the natural vocal tone associated with speaking.” In 2002, the National Stuttering Association conducted a survey of its membership. One of the questions asked was about experiences with an AAF device, including the Fluency Master. 38% of the respondents categorized their experience with this type of device as not at all successful, 44% said their experience was somewhat successful, and 18% reported their experience was very successful. Bothe, et al.
Experimental/Investigational · 2007 · IMR EI07-7129
A 50-year-old male enrollee has requested speech therapy for treatment of his stuttering. Findings: The physician reviewer found that a review of the scientific literature reveals a study by Koedoot and colleagues which states, “moderate to severe stuttering has a negative impact on overall quality of life.” In regards to treatment, a review by Blomgren states, “although it is presented that a comprehensive approach to stuttering treatment will provide the best results, no single approach to stuttering treatment can claim universal success with all adults who stutter.” In the case of this patient, he reportedly has stuttering however there is no description of the severity, duration, onset or prior treatment, if any.
Medical Necessity · 2013 · IMR MN13-15172

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 stuttering 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 stuttering? 56.3% won.

Explain my denial — freeStart my appeal · $39