Home / Treatments / Platelet-rich Plasma Injection
Platelet-rich Plasma Injection denials: what the review data shows
Independent reviewers have decided 114 published cases where an insurer denied Platelet-rich Plasma Injection — and they overturned the insurer 7% of the time. A denial for Platelet-rich Plasma Injection is a starting position, not a final answer.
Published decisions
114
2001–2026
Overturned
7%
8 denials reversed
By condition
Published outcomes when Platelet-rich Plasma Injection was denied for these conditions.
| Condition | Decisions | Overturned |
|---|---|---|
| Knee Osteoarthritis | 13 | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Experimental/Investigational The plan called the treatment unproven. These turn on published evidence, so the appeal is a literature argument. | 102 | 5.9% |
Medical Necessity The plan said the care wasn’t medically necessary. The most common fight, and the most winnable. | 12 | 16.7% |
Typical time to a decision
15 days
Most land between 7 and 21 days
Handled as urgent
30.7%
Expedited when a delay would cause harm
Recent direction
Falling
8% → 3.7% 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
Findings: The physician reviewer found that An enrollee has requested authorization and coverage for a platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection to the left foot. PRP is a rich source of growth factors and cytokines that stimulate the natural healing process of many tissue types. They modulate neovascularization and angiogenesis, promote mitogenesis, improve production of type 1 collagen, and have anti-inflammatory effects. Corticosteroid injections (CSI) inhibit fibroblast proliferation and expression of ground substance protein. Current medical literature documents multiple side effects with CSI, including plantar fascial tear, fat pad atrophy, abscess, and osteomyelitis. Breton and colleagues note that therapy with CSI has a high recurrence rate and a risk of rupture in ten percent of patients.
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: An enrollee has requested reimbursement for platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections for the right knee. This patient sustained a right knee injury and was diagnosed with a grade 3 medial collateral ligament (MCL) tear, anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear, medial meniscus tear, and lateral meniscus tear. She underwent ACL reconstruction with medial and lateral meniscus repair. Surgical augmentation with PRP was given as the MCL and meniscal capsular junction were not repaired surgically. A subsequent PRP injection was performed to the posterior lateral corner ligaments including popliteus, arcuate ligament, popliteal fibular ligament, and fibular collateral ligament.
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 reimbursement and prospective authorization and coverage for (1) bilateral platelet-rich plasma injections (to both knees, (2) platelet-rich plasma injections to left knee, and (3) bilateral platelet-rich plasma injections every six months to both knees. Researchers report, “Among patients with symptomatic mild to moderate radiographic knee osteoarthritis, intra-articular injection of platelet-rich plasma, compared with injection of saline placebo, did not result in a significant difference in symptoms or joint structure at 12 months. These findings do not support use of platelet-rich plasma for the management of knee osteoarthritis.” Researchers explain that platelet-rich plasma works by delivering a supraphysiologic amount of growth factors and cytokines contained within platelets.
Findings: The physician reviewer found that an enrollee has requested platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections to the left knee. There are limited large-scale, long-term references showing the safety and efficacy of PRP injections. Researchers report, “Among patients with symptomatic mild to moderate radiographic knee osteoarthritis, intra-articular injection of PRP, compared with injection of a saline placebo, did not result in a significant difference in symptoms or joint structure at 12 months.” The efficacy of PRP injections has not been proven in long-term, peer-reviewed studies. Researchers explain, “PRP works by delivering a supraphysiologic amount of growth factors and cytokines contained within platelets. In musculoskeletal medicine, PRP is a promising treatment modality with clear evidence of safety.
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 Platelet-rich Plasma 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.