Home / Conditions / Treatment-resistant Depression

Treatment-resistant Depression: when insurers say no, reviewers often say yes

In 60 published external-review decisions involving treatment-resistant depression, independent physician reviewers overturned the insurer’s denial 66.7% of the time.

Published decisions
60
2001–2026
Overturned
66.7%
40 denials reversed

Most-fought treatments for treatment-resistant depression

What insurers denied — and how those fights ended.
TreatmentDecisionsOverturned
TMS23
78.3%

What the insurer actually argued

Denials fall into different categories, and they don’t succeed equally — so the reason on your letter changes how you should answer it.
Reason givenDecisionsOverturned
Medical Necessity
The plan said the care wasn’t medically necessary. The most common fight, and the most winnable.
38
78.9%
Experimental/Investigational
The plan called the treatment unproven. These turn on published evidence, so the appeal is a literature argument.
22
45.5%
Typical time to a decision
14 days
Most land between 7 and 21 days
Handled as urgent
46.7%
Expedited when a delay would cause harm
Recent direction
Rising
55.6%72.2% overturned, last three years
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: An enrollee has requested authorization and coverage for weekly therapy.At issue is whether the requested weekly therapy is medically necessary to treat the patient’s medical condition as defined in Health and Safety code section 1374(a)(3)(A) set forth below. If weekly therapy is upheld as not medically necessary to treat the enrollee’s condition, is therapy every other week medically necessary to treat the enrollee’s condition, as defined in Health and Safety code section 1374.72(a)(3)(A) set forth below? If therapy every other week is upheld as not medically necessary to treat the enrollee’s condition, is therapy every three weeks medically necessary to treat the enrollee’s condition, as defined in Health and Safety code section 1374.72(a)(3)(A) set forth below?
Medical Necessity · 2021 · IMR MN21-35447
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: The patient has requested authorization and coverage for intravenous ketamine treatment (once every two weeks). At issue is whether the requested intravenous ketamine treatments (once every two weeks) to treat the enrollee’s mental health or substance use disorder are medically necessary as defined in Health and Safety code section 1374(a)(3)(A) set forth below. “Medically necessary treatment of a mental health or substance use disorder” means a service or product addressing the specific needs of that patient, for the purpose of preventing, diagnosing, or treating an illness, injury, condition, or its symptoms, including minimizing the progression of that illness, injury, condition, or its symptoms, in a manner that is all of the following: (i) in accordance with the generally accepted standards of mental health and substance use disorder care;…
Medical Necessity · 2021 · IMR MN21-34876

Where the denial was upheld

Worth reading too — these show what an appeal has to overcome.
Physician 1: The patient is a 32-year-old female with a diagnosis of treatment resistant depression. She has had multiple hospitalizations for the treatment of depression and pseudotumor cerebri. The patient may also suffer from borderline personality disorder and episodes of self-destructive behavior and frequent suicidal ideation are noted. Several medications are mentioned, but only Cymbalta and Geodon are included in the current treatment regimen. It is not clear from the record why Geodon was prescribed. The patient has requested authorization and coverage for vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) therapy. The Health Plan has denied this request on the basis that there is insufficient evidence of its efficacy at this time.A review of the submitted clinical information does not indicate whether there has been a sufficient trial of medications, including MAOIs.
Experimental/Investigational · 2006 · IMR EI06-5430
Physician 1: The clinical documentation concerns a 53-year-old male who has a history of depression that he states has occurred over the last 21 years. He has had multiple pharmacological trials but reports that he still has symptoms and has been unable to pursue his profession as a veterinarian. His primary symptom appears to be his memory loss. The patient gives an example in his letter of not being able to recognize his old patients. His treating psychiatrist recommended neuropsychiatric testing but the submitted documentation does not contain the results of a MMSE or formal neuropsychological testing. The patient also reported a tremor and some possible weakness in his extremity.
Experimental/Investigational · 2006 · IMR EI06-5339

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 treatment-resistant depression 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 treatment-resistant depression? 66.7% won.

Explain my denial — freeStart my appeal · $39