Home / Treatments / Hyaluronic Acid Injection

Hyaluronic Acid Injection denials: what the review data shows

Independent reviewers have decided 21 published cases where an insurer denied Hyaluronic Acid Injection — and they overturned the insurer 66.7% of the time. A denial for Hyaluronic Acid Injection is a starting position, not a final answer.

Published decisions
21
2001–2026
Overturned
66.7%
14 denials reversed

Conditions behind hyaluronic acid injection denials

What insurers denied — and how those fights ended.
CategoryDecisionsOverturned
Osteoarthritis Of The Knee10
70%
Knee Osteoarthritis3
100%

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.
18
77.8%
Experimental/Investigational
The plan called the treatment unproven. These turn on published evidence, so the appeal is a literature argument.
3
0%
Typical time to a decision
8 days
Most land between 4 and 20 days
Handled as urgent
57.1%
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: An enrollee has requested authorization and coverage for Hyaluronic injections. The Health Plan has denied this request indicating that the requested procedure is not medically necessary for treatment of the enrollee has left knee osteoarthritis. A review of the record indicates that the enrollee has been diagnosed with left knee osteoarthritis. The enrollee reported having left knee pain and swelling. The enrollee is 9 months post-left knee surgery. The enrollee was noted to have been on high dose non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for months and had received a left knee cortisone injection. The enrollee’s provider has recommended Hyaluronic injections.
Medical Necessity · 2018 · IMR MN18-29634
Nature of Statutory Criteria/ Case Summary: The enrollee is requesting authorization and coverage for Monovisc injections in both knees for arthritis of both knees. She injured her knees nine years prior, resulting in a left anterior cruciate ligament tear, a left medial cruciate ligament tear, and a left medial meniscus tear. She received hyaluronic acid injections last year and the year before, with reported improvement in pain. She participates in physical therapy. She received cortisone injections earlier this year. She was re-evaluated by her orthopedist for a flare-up of bilateral anterior and medial knee pain. She complains of intermittent left knee shifting when walking down the stairs. She participated in physical therapy twice per month, a home exercise program five days per week, stationary biking twice per week, and aqua fitness once per week.
Medical Necessity · 2019 · IMR MN19-31985

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 hyaluronan injections for treatment of the enrollee’s hip pain. Findings: Three physician reviewers found that this patient is requesting authorization and coverage for hyaluronic acid injection for treatment of left hip pain attributed to osteoarthrosis. Viscosupplementation with hyaluronan is performed frequently for painful knee osteoarthritis, but the benefits are limited. The hyaluronan injection treatment proposed is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treatment of painful osteoarthritis of the knee and injection in the hip is an off label usage. However, there have been very limited studies as to the superior efficacy of hyaluronic injections for treatment of hip pain related to hip osteoarthritis.
Experimental/Investigational · 2016 · IMR EI16-23505
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: A patient has requested authorization and coverage for viscosupplement/hyaluronic acid injections. The submitted documentation does not support the medical necessity of the requested medication. The evidence-based peer-reviewed literature supports the use of viscosupplementation injections for the treatment of pain in patients with severe osteoarthritis of the knee who have failed conservative treatment, including corticosteroid injections. Viscosupplementation has been found to be safe and effective and allow for delay of total knee replacement. In this case, the patient has been diagnosed with advanced osteoarthritis of the right knee. However, the patient recently completed physical therapy with improvement noted, and underwent a recent corticosteroid injection, with no documentation of inadequate response.
Medical Necessity · 2018 · IMR MN18-28165

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 Hyaluronic Acid Injectionwhen 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.

Denied Hyaluronic Acid Injection? 66.7% got it reversed.

Explain my denial — freeStart my appeal · $39