Euflexxa denials in California external review

In the California DMHC record, independent physician reviewers decided 35 published external-review cases involving Euflexxaand overturned the plan’s denial in 65.7%. That is a historical result among cases that reached this program, not a forecast for an individual appeal.

California DMHC decisions
35
2008–2025
Overturned
65.7%
23 denials reversed

By condition

Published outcomes when Euflexxa was denied for these conditions.
ConditionDecisionsOverturned
Osteoarthritis Of The Knee15
80%

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.
28
75%
Experimental/Investigational
The plan called the treatment unproven. These turn on published evidence, so the appeal is a literature argument.
7
28.6%
Typical time to a decision
12 days
Most land between 5 and 19 days
Handled as urgent
37.1%
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: A 62-year-old female enrollee has requested authorization and coverage for Euflexxa shots series of three for the left knee every six months. In the current peer-reviewed medical literature, the authors conducted a systematic review on the efficacy and safety of repeat courses of hyaluronan therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. The authors concluded that repeat courses of the hyaluronans were safe and effective in the treatment of pain associated with osteoarthritis of the knee. Further, the researchers found that repeated cycles of intra-articular sodium hyaluronate in patients with knee osteoarthritis was found efficacious during a 54-month follow-up period.
Experimental/Investigational · 2018 · IMR EI18-29580
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: An enrollee has requested Euflexxa injections for treatment of the enrollee’s osteoarthritis. Findings: The physician reviewer found that the evidence based medical peer-reviewed literature supports the use of repeat series of viscosupplementation injections for the treatment of pain in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Bannuru and colleagues concluded that hyaluronic acid was the best pharmacologic intervention for knee osteoarthritis in their meta-analysis of 137 studies with 33,243 participants. Hyaluronic acid was found to be better than injected placebo or injected corticosteroids.
Medical Necessity · 2016 · IMR MN16-23546

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 Euflexxa injections for treatment of her osteoarthritis. Findings: The physician reviewer found that the evidence based medical guidelines and peer-reviewed literature does not support the use of hyaluronic acid injections, such as Euflexxa, for osteoarthritis in the knees. Its use for treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee remains the subject of debate because the use of hyaluronan is not consistently supported by evidence based literature. The rationale for the use of hyaluronan includes the concept that proinflammatory mediators and metalloproteinases (MMPs) that stimulate chondrocytes to syntheses endogenous hyaluronic acid and proteoglycans will be affected positively by the injection of hyaluronic acid.
Medical Necessity · 2016 · IMR MN16-22790
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: An enrollee has requested Euflexxa injections for treatment of his medical condition. Findings: The physician reviewer found that evidence based peer-reviewed literature and clinical practice guidelines have indicated that intraarticular steroid injections are a first line pharmacological intervention consideration in the treatment of knee arthritis, while intraarticular hyaluronan injections like Euflexxa are a second line consideration (Cheng, et al; 2012; Henrotin, et al; and Hochberg, et al). Jevsevar and colleagues performed a systematic review of the published evidence and concluded that, “Meta-analysis of only the double-blinded, sham-controlled trials with at least sixty patients did not show clinically important differences of HA treatment over placebo.
Medical Necessity · 2016 · IMR MN16-22787

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 Euflexxa, 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 Euflexxa? Use the California record to prepare.

Explain my denial — freeStart my appeal · $39