Hypoglossal Nerve Stimulator Implantation denials: what the review data shows
Independent reviewers have decided 22 published cases where an insurer denied Hypoglossal Nerve Stimulator Implantation — and they overturned the insurer 59.1% of the time. A denial for Hypoglossal Nerve Stimulator Implantation is a starting position, not a final answer.
By condition
| Condition | Decisions | Overturned |
|---|---|---|
| Obstructive Sleep Apnea | 22 | 59.1% |
Where the denial was overturned
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: A male enrollee has requested authorization and coverage for implantation of a cranial nerve neurostimulator for treatment of the enrollee’s obstructive sleep apnea. Findings: The physician reviewer found that there is sufficient support in the medical literature for the requested services in this clinical setting. Although traditional upper airway surgical procedures target the anatomic component of obstruction, upper airway stimulation tackles the twin goals of improving anatomic and neuromuscular pathology. After decades of trials demonstrating proof of concept of hypoglossal nerve stimulation in animal and human subjects, the three and four year results of a large multicenter, prospective trial were published in January 2016 and February 2017.
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: An enrollee has requested authorization and coverage for implantation of a hypoglossal nerve stimulator. Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is an increasingly prevalent clinical problem with significant effects. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) has demonstrated excellent efficacy and safety for treatment of OSA. In patients who do not tolerate CPAP and fail to improve with an oral appliance, surgical intervention may be required. Although traditional upper airway surgical procedures target the anatomic component of obstruction, upper airway stimulation tackles the twin goals of improving anatomic and neuromuscular pathology. As reported in the published medical literature, the STAR trial demonstrated that hypoglossal nerve stimulation led to significant improvements in objective and subjective measurements of the severity of OSA.
Where the denial was upheld
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: An enrollee has requested authorization and coverage for implantation of a hypoglossal nerve stimulator for treatment of the enrollee’s obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Findings: 2/3 of the physician reviewers found that review of the current literature indicates that use of hypoglossal nerve stimulation in treatment of OSA shows promise. However, criteria for the use of this therapy includes that patients have moderate to severe OSA with an AHI between 20 and 60, BMI of less than 32, and failure of trial of CPAP therapy. This patient has an AHI of 76.7 which is greater than the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) criteria of less than 60 and greater than 50, which is used for most study criteria. In addition, the medical records provided do not demonstrate the patient has failed treatment with standard therapies including CPAP.
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: The patient has requested authorization and coverage for implantation of a hypoglossal nerve stimulator. Findings: Two physician reviewers found that CPAP is the most common type of therapy for patients with severe OSA. Hypoglossal nerve stimulation therapy has been proven by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to be an effective modality of treatment of OSA in patients with tongue-based obstruction.
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.
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 Hypoglossal Nerve Stimulator Implantationwhen 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