Home / Treatments / Radiation Therapy
Radiation Therapy denials: what the review data shows
Independent reviewers have decided 178 published cases where an insurer denied Radiation Therapy — and they overturned the insurer 56.7% of the time. A denial for Radiation Therapy is a starting position, not a final answer.
Published decisions
178
2001–2026
Overturned
56.7%
101 denials reversed
Conditions behind radiation therapy denials
What insurers denied — and how those fights ended.
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. | 108 | 49.1% |
Medical Necessity The plan said the care wasn’t medically necessary. The most common fight, and the most winnable. | 70 | 68.6% |
Typical time to a decision
7 days
Most land between 5 and 15 days
Handled as urgent
73%
Expedited when a delay would cause harm
Recent direction
Rising
50% → 65.1% 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 Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: An enrollee has requested authorization and coverage for radiation therapy to the adrenal glands. Historically, the management of metastatic tumors has been focused on systemic therapies such as chemotherapy. The advent of newer molecular sequencing techniques and targeted therapies has allowed clinicians to provide very tailored systemic therapies to metastatic cancer patients. Patients who respond well to these targeted systemic therapies may demonstrate good disease response throughout most of their body. However, it is still common for certain localized metastatic tumor deposits to continue to grow despite good overall disease control in the rest of the body.
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: A patient has requested authorization and coverage for any or all of the additional components of the requested image-guided superficial radiation therapy services [therapeutic radiology treatment planning; therapeutic radiology simulation-aided field setting, simple; therapeutic radiology simulation-aided field setting, intermediate; treatment devices, design and construction, complex; medical radiation physics, dosimetry, treatment devices, and special services; radiation treatment management; and ultrasonic guidance for placement of radiation therapy fields] in addition to the authorized services [radiation treatment delivery, superficial and/or orthovoltage, per day; therapeutic radiology simulation aided field setting, and basic radiation dosimetry calculation].
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 intraoperative radiation therapy. At issue is whether intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) is likely to be more beneficial for this patient’s therapy compared to other standard forms of adjuvant radiation therapy following lumpectomy. It is considered standard therapy for patients to undergo adjuvant radiation therapy after a lumpectomy as part of their treatment program. Most commonly, this radiation therapy is given post-surgery over the course of one to several weeks using a variety of treatment modalities such as external beam or interstitial brachytherapy. The American Brachytherapy Society notes that there are established consensus guidelines which establish suitable patients for IORT as well as established dosing regimens.
Findings: The physician reviewer found that Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: The patient has requested authorization and coverage for Intra-operative radiation therapy (IORT).At issue is whether IORT is likely to be more beneficial for this patient’s therapy compared to other standard forms of adjuvant radiation therapy following lumpectomy. It is considered standard therapy for patients to undergo adjuvant radiation therapy after a lumpectomy as part of their treatment program. Most commonly, this radiation therapy is given post-surgery over the course of one to several weeks using a variety of treatment modalities such as external beam or interstitial brachytherapy. Studies show that there are established consensus guidelines which establish suitable patients for IORT as well as established dosing regimens.
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 Radiation Therapywhen 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.