Bilateral Reduction Mammoplasty denials in California external review

In the California DMHC record, independent physician reviewers decided 17 published external-review cases involving Bilateral Reduction Mammoplastyand overturned the plan’s denial in 70.6%. That is a historical result among cases that reached this program, not a forecast for an individual appeal.

California DMHC decisions
17
2005–2023
Overturned
70.6%
12 denials reversed

Conditions behind Bilateral Reduction Mammoplasty denials

What insurers denied — and how those fights ended.
CategoryDecisionsOverturned
Macromastia10
70%
Gynecomastia3
33.3%
Typical time to a decision
21 days
Most land between 20 and 22 days
Handled as urgent
5.9%
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

Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: The patient is a female who has been diagnosed with bilateral macromastia. The provider noted the patient had undergone previous breast surgeries, including breast augmentation and mastopexy. The patient has developed breast enlargement and ptosis with time, and a breast reduction was requested due to her breasts being large, heavy, and pendulous. Physical examination findings included bilateral pseudoptosis in dense fibroglandular breasts. The patient reported the size and weight of her breasts were pulling on her back, neck, and shoulders. Photographs of the patient show breast asymmetry, with the right breast larger than the left. Marked pseudoptosis is present, with almost all the breast volume below the level of the nipple. Shoulder grooving is present. The patient underwent bilateral reduction mammoplasty.
Medical Necessity · 2020 · IMR MN20-33795
Findings: The physician reviewer found that Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: This patient has a history of macromastia. The patient was evaluated for a breast reduction on 6/24/2022. The patient reported chronic neck pain, back pain, and shoulder pain. The patient is five feet six inches tall and weighs approximately 231 pounds with a body mass index (BMI) of 37.41. The patient wears a size 42G bra. The patient right nipple areolar complex measures 40 cm from the sternal notch and the left measures 30 cm. The patient has attempted to lose weight but even with weight loss the breasts remain large. The size of The patient's breast makes it difficult to exercise. The Health Plan indicates that the requested treatment is not medically necessary for the treatment of the patient’s medical condition.
Medical Necessity · 2023 · IMR MN23-38654

Where the denial was upheld

Worth reading too — these show what an appeal has to overcome.
The patient is a 15-year-old male with gynecomastia. According to the record he is not having pain or other physiologic problems related to his breast enlargement. He is said to suffer from low self-esteem, but there is no record of psychological counseling or psychotherapy included for review. The patient’s parent has requested authorization for bilateral reduction mammoplasty. The request was denied by the Health Plan based upon a determination that the procedure is not medically necessary.The record indicates the patient is obese, and obesity is a well-recognized cause of pubertal gynecomastia.
Medical Necessity · 2006 · IMR MN06-5998
A 53-year-old female enrollee has requested a bilateral reduction mammoplasty for the treatment of her macromastia. Findings: The physician reviewer found that the submitted clinical notes do not contain findings of intertrigo. While the patient’s primary care physician makes reference to chronic shoulder, back and neck pain, treatment notes documenting the chronicity of these complaints have not been provided. The low back complaints are not attributable to breast hypertrophy, though the upper back pain can be causally related to large breasts or other intrinsic cervical or thoracic etiology, the source of which has not been adequately documented in the supplied records. All told, there is inadequate evidence that the proposed mammoplasty is clinically indicated for this patient.
Medical Necessity · 2007 · IMR MN07-7061

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 treatment 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 Bilateral Reduction Mammoplasty, 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.

Denied Bilateral Reduction Mammoplasty? Use the California record to prepare.

Explain my denial — freeStart my appeal · $9