Type 1 Diabetes denials in California external review

In the California DMHC record, independent physician reviewers decided 136 published external-review cases involving type 1 diabetesand overturned the plan’s denial in 74.3%. That is a historical result among cases that reached this program, not a forecast for an individual appeal.

California DMHC decisions
136
2003–2026
Overturned
74.3%
101 denials reversed

Most-fought treatments for type 1 diabetes

What insurers denied — and how those fights ended.
TreatmentDecisionsOverturned
Insulin Pump14
71.4%

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.
104
72.1%
Experimental/Investigational
The plan called the treatment unproven. These turn on published evidence, so the appeal is a literature argument.
32
81.2%
Typical time to a decision
13 days
Most land between 5 and 21 days
Handled as urgent
38.2%
Expedited when a delay would cause harm
Recent direction
Falling
94.4%70.6% 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: The patient has requested authorization and coverage for Ozempic. Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disease that may coexist with insulin resistance syndrome, which leads to obesity and metabolic syndrome, resulting in type 2 diabetes when associated with hyperglycemia. This condition is known as double diabetes. Researchers observed that “Double diabetes seems to be an independent and important risk factor for persons with type 1 diabetes mellitus in developing macrovascular and microvascular comorbidities.” In this case, the records indicate that the patient has coexisting type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The patient also has a diagnosis of obesity as evidenced by his body mass index (BMI) greater than 30 kg/m2, which requires treatment.
Medical Necessity · 2024 · IMR MN24-42015
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: The patient is diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypoglycemia, and left non-proliferative retinopathy. On 8/23/18, the patient’s hemoglobin A1c level was 7.4. In a report dated 1/24/19, the patient reported hypoglycemic episodes. His home blood glucose logs show frequent hypoglycemic events. The patient had been treated with Lantus and Humalog. On 2/5/19, the patient’s hemoglobin A1c level was 7.1. The patient’s provider adjusted his insulin doses to avoid hypoglycemia. The patient requested coverage for an insulin pump and continuous glucose monitor. The Health Plan denied the request and reported the requested equipment was not medically necessary for the evaluation and treatment of this patient.
Medical Necessity · 2019 · IMR MN19-30683

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: A patient has requested authorization and coverage for Mounjaro Soln Auto-inj 15 mg/0.5 mL.Type 1 diabetes is solely insulin-dependent. Most type 1 diabetic patients rely on multiple daily insulin injections to control their blood glucose. Intensive insulin therapy, typically through multiple daily injections (MDI) or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) using insulin pumps, is generally required. Tirzepatide (Mounjaro) is a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Mounjaro for treating patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus along with diet and exercise, based on data from clinical trials.
Medical Necessity · 2025 · IMR MN25-45350
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: An enrollee has requested authorization and coverage for automated insulin delivery for treatment of the enrollee’s diabetes type I. Fulfills Findings: The physician reviewer found that The requested device is considered investigational as long term studies are not available. There is not enough long term data to show that it is superior over other monitoring devices. At this time, the incremental benefit of automated closed loop control of insulin administration is unclear. There is currently no long term data available demonstrating health outcome benefits of such technology compared to other treatment methods, including multiple daily injection therapy and continuous insulin infusion therapy with or without a threshold suspend device with or without CGM.
Experimental/Investigational · 2017 · IMR EI17-26492

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 type 1 diabetes, 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 type 1 diabetes? Use the California record to prepare.

Explain my denial — freeStart my appeal · $39