Oral Immunotherapy denials in California external review

In the California DMHC record, independent physician reviewers decided 13 published external-review cases involving Oral Immunotherapyand overturned the plan’s denial in 0%. That is a historical result among cases that reached this program, not a forecast for an individual appeal.

California DMHC decisions
13
2016–2024
Overturned
0%
0 denials reversed

Conditions behind Oral Immunotherapy denials

What insurers denied — and how those fights ended.
CategoryDecisionsOverturned
Food Allergy5
0%
Typical time to a decision
20 days
Most land between 7 and 21 days
Handled as urgent
30.8%
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 upheld

Worth reading too — these show what an appeal has to overcome.
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: An enrollee has requested authorization and coverage for oral immunotherapy treatment.Findings: Three out of three physician reviewers found that the requested oral immunotherapy treatment is not likely to be more beneficial than any other available standard treatments for the patient’s medical condition.The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI) states that Oral Immunotherapy (OIT) refers to feeding an allergic individual an increasing amount of an allergen with the goal of increasing the threshold that triggers a reaction. The goal of therapy is to raise the threshold that may trigger a reaction and provide the allergic individual protection against accidental ingestion of the allergen.
Experimental/Investigational · 2020 · IMR EI20-34415
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: An enrollee’s parent has requested authorization and coverage for sublingual immunotherapy and/or food tolerance induction. The records provided for review document that this patient has a history of food allergies for which his provider has recommended oral immunotherapy. However, there is a lack of published peer-reviewed literature, scientific evidence, or professional standard guidelines supporting the safety and efficacy of food allergy oral immunotherapy. The newly available, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved oral immunotherapy treatment Palforzia, was not included in the treatment plan for this patient, who has a diagnosis of allergy to peanut. With the exception of Palforzia, there are no other FDA-approved oral immunotherapy/desensitization treatments available.
Experimental/Investigational · 2020 · IMR EI20-34451

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 Oral Immunotherapy, 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 Oral Immunotherapy? Use the California record to prepare.

Explain my denial — freeStart my appeal · $9