Home / Treatments / Laparoscopy
Laparoscopy denials: what the review data shows
Independent reviewers have decided 21 published cases where an insurer denied Laparoscopy — and they overturned the insurer 57.1% of the time. A denial for Laparoscopy is a starting position, not a final answer.
Published decisions
21
2001–2026
Overturned
57.1%
12 denials reversed
Conditions behind laparoscopy denials
What insurers denied — and how those fights ended.
| Category | Decisions | Overturned |
|---|---|---|
| Endometriosis | 11 | 63.6% |
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. | 18 | 55.6% |
Experimental/Investigational The plan called the treatment unproven. These turn on published evidence, so the appeal is a literature argument. | 3 | 66.7% |
Typical time to a decision
19 days
Most land between 6 and 21 days
Handled as urgent
38.1%
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
The enrollee requested reimbursement for laparoscopic ablation of uterine fibroids procedure (CPT code 58674). The enrollee has a history of intramural fibroids with abnormal uterine bleeding. An office visit revealed uterine fibroids, enlarged (16-week size), contour irregular and midline, mobile, and non-tender. The provider also noted leiomyoma and a pelvic mass. Pelvic ultrasound showed an anteverted, enlarged uterus. Also noted on the scan was a large, hypoechoic mass, indicative of a uterine fibroid and measuring 6.9 x 8.2 x 7.4 centimeters. The provider discussed a laparoscopic procedure, which uses radiofrequency energy to destroy the fibroid. Risks, benefits, and alternatives to the procedure were also discussed with the enrollee. The enrollee underwent the laparoscopic ablation procedure for abnormal uterine bleeding.
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: The patient has requested authorization and coverage for diagnostic and operative laparoscopy, treatment of endometriosis, lysis of adhesions, isthmocele repair, hysteroscopy with possible resection, possible appendectomy, possible cystoscopy and proctoscopy (standard excision of pelvic peritoneal endometriosis, laparoscopic bilateral ureterolysis, for laparoscopic excision of endometriosis of uterosacral ligaments, laparoscopic excision of endometriosis from the bladder, laparoscopic excision of endometriosis from intestines, except rectum, laparoscopic procedure, appendix, laparoscopic excision of endometriosis/fibrosis of rectum/rectovaginal septum, laparoscopic suspension of the ovaries, laparoscopic neuroplasty of the nerves, and laparoscopic excision of endometriosis/fibrosis of cervix).
Where the denial was upheld
Worth reading too — these show what an appeal has to overcome.
A 47-year-old female enrollee has requested authorization and coverage for laparoscopy, surgical, with vaginal hysterectomy with removal of tube(s) and/or ovary(s) for treatment of the enrollee’s pelvic pain and abnormal bleeding. Findings: The physician reviewer found that based on review of the available records, the patient has a significant history of abnormal bleeding and pelvic pain. In general, the incidence of abnormal uterine bleeding increases as women approach the end of their reproductive years. In this regard, perimenopausal women are not unlike their perimenarchal counterparts. In perimenopausal women, the onset of anovulatory cycles, which are a frequent cause of the abnormal bleeding, represents a continuation of declining ovarian function.
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: The patient has been treated for chronic pain for several years. She has been treated with physical therapy, nerve blocks, acupuncture, and medication therapy. The patient has undergone multiple surgical interventions. The records noted that she is status post lysis of adhesions. She has had some response to hormone replacement and requires chronic narcotic use for pain control. The patient has requested authorization and coverage for deep excision laparoscopic surgery. The Health Plan has denied this request and reported that the requested services are not medically necessary for the treatment of this patient.The submitted documentation fails to demonstrate the medical necessity of the requested services. This patient has undergone multiple prior surgeries without benefit.
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 Laparoscopywhen 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.