Card Valve Repl denials in California external review

In the California DMHC record, independent physician reviewers decided 23 published external-review cases involving Card Valve Repland overturned the plan’s denial in 73.9%. That is a historical result among cases that reached this program, not a forecast for an individual appeal.

California DMHC decisions
23
2003–2023
Overturned
73.9%
17 denials reversed

Conditions behind Card Valve Repl denials

What insurers denied — and how those fights ended.
CategoryDecisionsOverturned
Cardiac Valve Dis12
75%
Cardiac Heart Prob7
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.
13
69.2%
Experimental/Investigational
The plan called the treatment unproven. These turn on published evidence, so the appeal is a literature argument.
10
80%
Typical time to a decision
7 days
Most land between 5 and 13 days
Handled as urgent
82.6%
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: An enrollee has requested authorization and coverage for a MitraClip procedure with a one-day hospital inpatient stay. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves the use of percutaneous mitral valve repair using the MitraClip device for high-risk patients with degenerative or other primary mitral valve regurgitation. Asch and colleagues report that the Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients with Functional Mitral Regurgitation (COAPT) trial demonstrated that patients with 3+ or 4+ mitral regurgitation who remained symptomatic despite maximally tolerated guideline directed medical therapy benefited from MitraClip implantation, regardless of their degree of left ventricle (LV) dysfunction, LV dilatation, pulmonary hypertension, severity of tricuspid regurgitation, or individual…
Experimental/Investigational · 2021 · IMR EI21-36357
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: An enrollee has requested authorization and coverage for transcatheter aortic valve replacement with prosthetic valve, percutaneous femoral artery approach.Findings: Two out of three physician reviewers found that the medical evidence supports the requested services in this clinical setting. The medical records demonstrate that the patient has symptomatic aortic stenosis, based on recent onset symptoms of dyspnea with limited (1 block or incline) exertion, fatigue and dizziness, and she therefore has Class II heart failure symptoms. The patient had a recent transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) which revealed moderately severe to severe aortic stenosis secondary to a bicuspid valve.
Experimental/Investigational · 2019 · IMR EI19-31324

Where the denial was upheld

Worth reading too — these show what an appeal has to overcome.
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: An enrollee has requested authorization and coverage for transcatheter mitral valve replacement. There is a lack of formal guidelines or consensus statements available to support treatment with transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve replacement for treatment of this patient’s bioprosthetic mitral valve failure. Urena and colleagues noted that patients may be eligible for transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve replacement if “they are symptomatic, they are considered at high surgical risk, and their anatomy is suitable.” However, the available clinical trials comparing transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve replacement and surgical mitral valve replacement have not reported superior health outcomes with transcatheter approach. The U.S.
Experimental/Investigational · 2022 · IMR EI22-38321
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: An enrollee has requested authorization and coverage for mitral valve repair (MitraClip). Findings: The physician reviewer found that U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved percutaneous mitral valve repair using the MitraClip device for high risk patients with degenerative or other primary mitral valve regurgitation. The COAPT trial evaluated patients with 3-4+ mitral regurgitation who remained symptomatic despite maximally tolerated guideline directed medical therapy (Asch, et al.). The authors found that the patients benefited from MitraClip implantation, regardless of their degree of left ventricle (LV) dysfunction, LV dilatation, pulmonary hypertension or individual mitral regurgitation characteristics.
Experimental/Investigational · 2022 · IMR EI22-36847

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 Card Valve Repl, 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 Card Valve Repl? Use the California record to prepare.

Explain my denial — freeStart my appeal · $9