Transportation denials in California external review

In the California DMHC record, independent physician reviewers decided 65 published external-review cases involving transportation and overturned the plan’s denial in 53.8%. That is a historical result among cases that reached this program, not a forecast for an individual appeal.

California DMHC decisions
65
2017–2025
Overturned
53.8%
35 denials reversed

By denial reason

The stated reason changes which facts, criteria, and records matter.
Denial reasonDecisionsOverturned
medical necessity55
50.9%

Within this category

Subcategories with at least 15 published decisions.
SubcategoryDecisionsOverturned
Emergency32
65.6%
Non Emerg Med (NEMT)31
41.9%

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 givenDecisionsOverturned
Medical Necessity
The plan said the care wasn’t medically necessary. The most common fight, and the most winnable.
55
50.9%
Urgent Care
Expedited reviews, decided in days rather than weeks.
10
70%
Typical time to a decision
21 days
Most land between 17 and 22 days
Handled as urgent
6.2%
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

Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: The patient has requested authorization and coverage for (1) center-based applied behavior analysis (ABA) therapy consisting of 15 hours per week 2:1 (30 hours total) and 255 hours of enhanced supervision over a sixth month period and (2) two technicians to be present during the patient’s non-emergency medical transportation (NEMT) services to and from the services. Findings: The physician reviewer found that the patient displayed significant aggressive behaviors during behavioral assessments that occurred by telehealth in the patient’s home, tackling caregivers to the ground and having to be barricaded the basement due to the intensity of his behaviors. During an in-person assessment in the car, the patient was noted as being aggressive during the transportation, engaging in high-intensity biting, choking, and hitting.
Medical Necessity · 2022 · IMR MN22-37455
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: The parent of a patient has requested authorization and coverage for non-emergency psychiatric transportation to and from applied behavior analysis therapy. Findings: The physician reviewer found that patient centered care (PCC) has been defined as, “Providing care that is respectful of and responsive to individual patient preferences, needs, and values and ensuring that patient values guide all clinical decisions.” Patient- and family-centered care interventions are increasingly being implemented in various settings for improving the quality of health care.
Medical Necessity · 2021 · IMR MN21-36525

Where the denial was upheld

Worth reading too — these show what an appeal has to overcome.
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: The patient has requested reimbursement for air ambulance services provided by Critical Care Medflight. Functional impairments due to traumatically acquired brain insults can be profound, particularly in the setting of severe injuries and in the setting of intracerebral hemorrhage. Eapen and colleagues note that traumatic brain injury (TBI) sequelae can lead to long-term impairments in physical, cognitive, behavioral, and social function. Per the authors, TBI rehabilitation requires an interdisciplinary holistic team approach in the management of medical complications, the prevention of further disability, and helping patients return to their highest level of independence. While there is some natural recovery following acute TBI, the impairments associated with this condition are also generally amenable to various rehabilitation interventions.
Medical Necessity · 2021 · IMR MN21-35761
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: An enrollee has requested authorization and coverage for air ambulance service provided on 12/27/17. The Health Plan has denied this request indicating that the requested service was not medically necessary for treatment of the enrollees epilepsy.At issue in this case is whether the requested air ambulance service was medically necessary for treatment of the enrollees medical condition.In most cases, air ambulance transport is reserved for use in emergent situations in which ground transport is not feasible or readily available. Such situations from the neurology perspective include (but are not limited to), intracranial hemorrhages, strokes requiring endovascular therapy or other conditions requiring acute surgical intervention.
Medical Necessity · 2018 · IMR MN18-29633

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 category of care 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 transportation, 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 for transportation? Use the California record to prepare.

Explain my denial — freeStart my appeal · $39