Emergency/Urg Care denials in California external review
In the California DMHC record, independent physician reviewers decided 620 published external-review cases involving emergency/urg care and overturned the plan’s denial in 44.5%. That is a historical result among cases that reached this program, not a forecast for an individual appeal.
By denial reason
| Denial reason | Decisions | Overturned |
|---|---|---|
| emergency or urgent care | 583 | 44.4% |
| medical necessity | 37 | 45.9% |
Within this category
| Subcategory | Decisions | Overturned |
|---|---|---|
| Emergency Room | 471 | 46.5% |
| Urgent Care | 82 | 39% |
| Ambulance/Transport | 67 | 37.3% |
What the insurer actually argued
| Reason given | Decisions | Overturned |
|---|---|---|
Urgent Care Expedited reviews, decided in days rather than weeks. | 583 | 44.4% |
Medical Necessity The plan said the care wasn’t medically necessary. The most common fight, and the most winnable. | 37 | 45.9% |
What the reviewers wrote
Where the denial was overturned
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: An enrollee has requested surgical services on an emergent or urgent basis. Findings: The physician reviewer found that at issue in this case is whether a prudent layperson in the patient’s circumstances would have sought immediate medical attention. California law defines an “emergency medical condition” as a medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in any of the following: (1) Placing the patient’s health in serious jeopardy; (2) Serious impairment to bodily functions; (3) Serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part.
The parent of a 16-year-old male enrollee requested transportation services to a residential treatment facility in Utah for treatment of the enrollee’s diagnoses of bipolar disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and mood disorder. Findings: The physician reviewer found that according to the documentation submitted for review, the patient was reported to have threatened family members and laid hands on his four-year-old sibling. The sheriff was called. The enrollee was status post three days in juvenile hall after striking his mother in the head and having been arrested for assault and battery. The enrollee had stated that he wanted to return to juvenile hall and join a gang, and it was felt that his mother needed protection. Subsequently, it was reported that the patient had yanked his mother’s head back while driving at 60 mph with the four other children in the car.
Where the denial was upheld
A 65-year-old male enrollee has requested reimbursement for emergency services. Findings: The physician reviewer found that The patient is a 65-year-old male who sustained an initial fall and broke his neck and sustained right-sided weakness. He was discharged from an acute care hospital three days later and was admitted to a skilled nursing facility (SNF) the following day with a cervical collar in place. On the day of admission to the SNF or the following day the patient reportedly fell to the floor in the bathroom after slipping off the toilet. He reported no loss of consciousness or complaint of new neck pain. He was taken by ambulance from the SNF to the Emergency Department.
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: A 29-year-old female enrollee has requested reimbursement for emergency services. The patient is a 29-year-old female with a medical history significant for Crohn’s disease who presented to the emergency department with severe abdominal pain. The pain had been present for 1.5 weeks but had worsened over the prior two days. She was treated and discharged earlier the same day in an in-network emergency department. She was reportedly diagnosed with inflammation in her colon and was to follow-up as an outpatient with her provider. Her pain was noted to be 10/10 in severity at the time of presentation. Her emergency department evaluation included a complete blood count, chemistries, urinalysis, pregnancy test, lipase level and review of the computed tomography (CT) scan results from the earlier emergency room visit.
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 category of care generally, not any individual case.
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 emergency/urg care, 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