Home / Treatments / Hip Replacement
Hip Replacement denials: what the review data shows
Independent reviewers have decided 107 published cases where an insurer denied Hip Replacement — and they overturned the insurer 32.7% of the time. A denial for Hip Replacement is a starting position, not a final answer.
Published decisions
107
2001–2026
Overturned
32.7%
35 denials reversed
Conditions behind hip replacement denials
What insurers denied — and how those fights ended.
| Category | Decisions | Overturned |
|---|---|---|
| Osteoarthritis | 40 | 32.5% |
| Hip Problem | 29 | 37.9% |
| Hip Problem Pain | 21 | 19% |
| Joint Problem | 4 | 0% |
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 given | Decisions | Overturned |
|---|---|---|
Medical Necessity The plan said the care wasn’t medically necessary. The most common fight, and the most winnable. | 70 | 38.6% |
Experimental/Investigational The plan called the treatment unproven. These turn on published evidence, so the appeal is a literature argument. | 35 | 22.9% |
Typical time to a decision
18 days
Most land between 4 and 21 days
Handled as urgent
39.3%
Expedited when a delay would cause harm
Recent direction
Falling
27.3% → 6.7% overturned, last three years
What the reviewers wrote
Excerpts from the independent reviewers’ published findings — the actual reasoning, quoted, not summarised.
Where the denial was overturned
Physician 1The patient is a 42-year-old male with severe hip degenerative joint disease who requires total hip replacement. The patient has requested authorization for surface replacement arthroplasty. The Health Plan has denied authorization for the requested procedure indicating that it is considered investigational.At age 42 a surface replacement arthroplasty is a better option than a conventional total hip replacement because it spares more bone for revision hip surgery. This is an important concept in younger patients who require total hip replacement at less than 50 years of age. There is literature supporting the use of metal-on-metal surface replacement. It is certainly the best available option for relatively young total hip replacement candidates at the present time.
Physician 1: The patient is a 50-year-old female who had bilateral developmental hip dysplasia with shallow acetabula and degenerative changes more advanced on the left side, which is symptomatic. She researched her condition and decided that hip resurfacing arthroplasty is the procedure of choice for someone of her age and activity level. The Health Plan denied coverage for the proposed procedure on the basis that it is considered investigational. The major advantages of resurfacing include preservation of the femoral head and neck permitting standard total hip replacement (THR) if required at a later date. In addition, the procedure allows for a larger head size, which increases stability resulting in fewer dislocations and providing greater mobility. Although additional studies are being conducted, experience with total hip arthroplasty has been encouraging to date.
Where the denial was upheld
Worth reading too — these show what an appeal has to overcome.
Physician 1: The patient is a 51-year-old man with hip pain secondary to arthritis. He underwent metal-on-metal hip resurfacing in August 2004. The patient has requested reimbursement for the procedure at issue. The Health Plan has denied the patient’s request indicating the procedure at issue is considered experimental.Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing is an experimental procedure without proven efficacy. The current standard of care for the patient’s condition is a total hip replacement. This is the gold standard that all other treatments must be compared to. Metal-on-metal total hip resurfacing has not been effective and is out of favor given the extremely poor results of this technique.
Physician 1: The patient is a 50-year-old male who has had approximately a one-year history of right hip pain. On exam he was found to have osteoarthritis with narrowing of the joint space and pistol grip deformity. Based on the patient’s history and current condition, the patient’s physician recommended the patient undergo a metal-on-metal resurfacing procedure. Authorization and coverage for the proposed procedure has been denied by the Health Plan on the basis it is considered investigational for treatment of the patient’s medical condition.The requested procedure is not the gold standard procedure for hip replacement as of this date. Previous surface replacements have been ineffective with high rates of failure and complications.
Figures and quotations on this page come from 42,749 published decisions in the California DMHC Independent Medical Review dataset. These are California outcomes — every state runs an equivalent external review, but the rates here are California’s. 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 are outcomes from California’s external review program — an independent physician panel that binds the insurer. Every state has an equivalent process, and internal appeals succeed even more often. Cite the outcome record for Hip Replacementwhen you appeal: reviewers routinely find that denials like yours didn’t hold up.
SOURCE: CALIFORNIA DMHC INDEPENDENT MEDICAL REVIEW OUTCOMES (CHHS OPEN DATA) · DERIVED AGGREGATE STATISTICS ONLY · 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.