Residential Psychiatric Treatment denials: what the review data shows
Independent reviewers have decided 14 published cases where an insurer denied Residential Psychiatric Treatment — and they overturned the insurer 14.3% of the time. A denial for Residential Psychiatric Treatment is a starting position, not a final answer.
Conditions behind residential psychiatric treatment denials
| Category | Decisions | Overturned |
|---|---|---|
| Oppositional Defiant Disorder | 4 | 0% |
| Major Depressive Disorder | 3 | 0% |
Where the denial was overturned
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: An enrollee has requested reimbursement for the services provided. This patient has a formidable formal thought disorder with co-occurring personality disorder and substance use disorder. Indeed, his longitudinal history and symptom inventory, particularly the well-entrenched delusional thought system, is consistent with severe impairment and grave disability. The patient’s illness burden has impacted all functional domains. His fixed false beliefs generated prominent intrapsychic distress and impulsive moves to escape perceived persecution while his errant behaviors placed both himself at others at risk. The patient demonstrated delusional beliefs and his symptoms included decreased interest, poor concentration, and insomnia. On examination, he had poverty of speech, blunted and restricted affect and poor insight.
A 20-year-old male enrollee has requested inpatient psychiatric residential services for treatment of his multiple mental health conditions. Findings: The physician reviewer found that while this patient had significant anxiety and affective symptoms, it is clear that the addictive influences combined with the patient’s underlying pain and personality disorder were the primary vehicles of his symptoms. The American Psychiatric Association Clinical Practice Guideline on substance use and depressive disorders both support the use of residential programming in instances where less restrictive treatment settings have failed. Ultimately, the interpretation and application of clinical guidelines and patient placement criteria falls upon physicians and therapists working directly with the patient population.
Where the denial was upheld
The patient is a 17-year-old female with previously diagnosed dysthymic disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, and borderline intellectual function The patient was previously psychiatrically hospitalized in March and July of 2003 due to increasingly aggressive behavior and anger outbursts. A review of past records indicates anger and insubordination have been ongoing problems since the age of three, but have grown measurably in adolescent years. This has included unprovoked choking of her sister, shoving family members, non-compliance with rules at home and at school, lying, stealing, and killing cats, all of this without remorse. The patient later claimed some of her actions such as the killing of the cats were spurred by “voices,” typically that of a man, urging her to do so.
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: An enrollee has requested reimbursement and prospective authorization and coverage for long term residential psychiatric treatment in the locked facility. The Health Plan has denied this request indicating that the services at issue were not and are not medically necessary for treatment of the enrollee’s behavioral health condition.Findings: There is a lack of support for the medical necessity of the services at issue in this clinical setting. The patient was documented as violent, having mood lability, and hearing voices. The patient also reported thoughts of harm to himself and other people. The provider indicated that the patient’s symptoms remained acute and the patient was not progressing in treatment and recommended treatment at the inpatient level of care.
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 Residential Psychiatric Treatmentwhen 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