Foundation One Testing denials in California external review

In the California DMHC record, independent physician reviewers decided 15 published external-review cases involving Foundation One Testingand overturned the plan’s denial in 53.3%. That is a historical result among cases that reached this program, not a forecast for an individual appeal.

California DMHC decisions
15
2013–2018
Overturned
53.3%
8 denials reversed
Typical time to a decision
21 days
Most land between 18 and 21 days

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 reimbursement for FoundationOne testing. The Health Plan has denied this request indicating that the services at issue were considered investigational for evaluation of the enrollee who has a history of metastatic lung cancer.Findings: The therapy for advanced non-small cell adenocarcinoma has been revolutionized by the finding of EGFR mutations in adenocarcinomas, especially in this patient who is a non-smoker. The medical literature indicates that even if stage IV disease is present, therapy targeted to EGFR with erlotinib results in prolonged survival when compared with standard chemotherapy regimens.
Experimental/Investigational · 2018 · IMR EI18-28275
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: An enrollee has requested epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene analysis and Foundation One testing for evaluation of his medical condition. Findings: Two physician reviewers found that the EGFR gene analysis and Foundation One testing were likely to be more beneficial for evaluation of the patient’s medical condition than any available standard therapy. Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is an incurable disease. The standard of care is resection of the GBM maximally followed by treatment with temozolomide. On temozolomide treatment concomitant with radiation therapy, a randomized clinical trial showed only 26.5% two-year survival compared to 10.4% in the cohort receiving radiation only. Most GBM tumors recur and then the treatment options are limited.
Experimental/Investigational · 2016 · IMR EI16-21459

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 reimbursement for the panel of gene tests for evaluation of the enrollee’s malignant melanoma. Findings: The 3 physician reviewers found that FoundationOne testing offers a comprehensive panel of molecular genetic markers on an individual’s tumor with the hopes of identifying markers that can help guide therapy decision making. Per the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, it has not been determined if molecular markers are useful in treatment determination (predictive markers) and prognosis. Gene expression profiling for melanoma could be a valuable contribution to understanding the biology of the disease.
Experimental/Investigational · 2017 · IMR EI17-25966
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: An enrollee has requested reimbursement for gene testing for evaluation of the enrollee who has been diagnosed with malignant melanoma. Findings: 2/3 of the physician reviewers found that FoundationOne testing offers a comprehensive panel of molecular genetic markers on an individual’s tumor with the hopes of identifying markers that can help guide therapy decision making. Per the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, it has not been determined if molecular markers are useful in treatment determination (predictive markers) and prognosis for other than BRAF and c-KIT mutational analyses which are clinically useful only for patients with advanced disease considering these molecular targeted therapies.
Experimental/Investigational · 2017 · IMR EI17-26014

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 Foundation One Testing, 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 Foundation One Testing? Use the California record to prepare.

Explain my denial — freeStart my appeal · $9