Anti-hypertensives denials: what the review data shows
Independent reviewers have decided 40 published cases where an insurer denied Anti-hypertensives — and they overturned the insurer 27.5% of the time. A denial for Anti-hypertensives is a starting position, not a final answer.
Conditions behind anti-hypertensives denials
| Category | Decisions | Overturned |
|---|---|---|
| Hypertension | 25 | 24% |
| ADHD | 3 | 33.3% |
Where the denial was overturned
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: The patient has been diagnosed with hypertension, dyslipidemia, and atherosclerotic heart disease. The records noted a history of percutaneous coronary intervention. The patient was noted to have experienced left-sided chest tightness associated with weakness and shortness of breath in 2006. The patient subsequently underwent cardiac stent placement. The patient was noted to have undergone a second cardiac stenting procedure. A myocardial perfusion study revealed normal left ventricular perfusion. The patient’s blood pressure was noted to be 146/90. The provider discontinued Azor and prescribed Edarbyclor and amlodipine. The patient denied chest pain, shortness of breath, and palpitations. The patient’s blood pressure was noted to be 140/100. Samples of Edarbyclor were provided to the patient.
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: The patient has requested authorization and coverage for Bystolic 5 mg daily. While beta blockers are not regarded as the optimal first-line therapy for the management of hypertension, they may be indicated in certain clinical situation, especially in conjunction with an angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) as in this case, including for patients with rhythm disturbances, angina and prior myocardial infarction. In this case, the patient has a history of frequent premature ventricular contractions (PVC). Medical literature notes that potential PVC triggers include uncontrolled hypertension, and that the most common treatment medical therapy for patients with significant or persistent PVC related symptoms includes beta blockers.
Where the denial was upheld
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: An enrollee has requested authorization and coverage for Repatha Pushtronex 420 mL once a month. The Health Plan has denied this request indicating that the requested medication is not medically necessary for treatment of the enrollee who has a history of hyperlipidemia.The submitted documentation fails to demonstrate the medical necessity of the requested medication. Based on the records provided the patient has a history of hyperlipidemia on maximum tolerated statin medication and increased coronary risk but no documented cardiovascular disease. Repatha (evolocumab) is a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor studied in and approved for patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or for patients with documented clinical atherosclerotic heart disease who require additional lowering of LDL-cholesterol.
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: The patient has requested authorization and coverage for Praluent for treatment of the enrollee’s familial hyperlipidemia, coronary artery disease, and ischemic chest pain. Findings: The physician reviewer found that based on the records provided, the patient presents with hyperlipidemia and intermittent chest discomfort but no provokable ischemia on stress testing and no obstructive coronary disease on angiography. Praluent is a PCSK9 inhibitor studied in and approved for patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or for patients with documented clinical atherosclerotic heart disease as evidenced by myocardial infarction, coronary bypass, provokable ischemia on stress testing, stroke, or transient ischemic attack who require additional lowering of LDL cholesterol. This patient does not meet these criteria.
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 treatment generally, not any individual case.
These are outcomes from California’s external review program — an independent physician panel that binds the insurer. Every state has an equivalent process, and internal appeals succeed even more often. Cite the outcome record for Anti-hypertensiveswhen you appeal: reviewers routinely find that denials like yours didn’t hold up.
SOURCE: CALIFORNIA DMHC INDEPENDENT MEDICAL REVIEW OUTCOMES (CHHS OPEN DATA) · DERIVED AGGREGATE STATISTICS ONLY · METHODOLOGY