Tx For Allergies denials in California external review

In the California DMHC record, independent physician reviewers decided 52 published external-review cases involving Tx For Allergiesand 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
52
2002–2018
Overturned
53.8%
28 denials reversed

Conditions behind Tx For Allergies denials

What insurers denied — and how those fights ended.
CategoryDecisionsOverturned
Asthma17
58.8%
Resp Allergies16
68.8%
Rash3
33.3%
Typical time to a decision
21 days
Most land between 15 and 22 days
Handled as urgent
11.5%
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

The patient is a 57-year-old male with moderate to severe allergic asthma and chronic sinusitis, with seasonal and year-round allergies. He has tried various medications but has been unresponsive to standard medical treatments. His lung function tests revealed a low FEV1.The patient underwent skin testing in 1997 with positive results to trees, grasses and weeds. His IgE level was reported as 39.1 IU/ml in May 1997. The patient’s current medications include Advair, Singulair, Flonase, Nexium, Zyrtec, Optivar, and Duratuss. He has also received a variety of other medications, including inhaled corticosteroids, theophylline and long-acting beta-agonists. Review of progress notes indicate the patient was taking 20mg prednisone in April 2002, indicating severe steroid dependency.
Medical Necessity · 2004 · IMR MN04-3593
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: The parent of an enrollee has requested authorization and coverage for pollen and allergy injections performed weekly for treatment of the enrollee’s allergic rhinitis and asthma. Findings: The physician reviewer found that based on the available documentation, the service of immunotherapy dosed at once weekly intervals meets the current criteria for medical necessity and is within the standard of care for providing immunotherapy injections to a patient who is symptomatic with asthma and allergic rhinitis. Review of the record shows sufficient documentation to support the increased dosing. There was allergy skin testing done with positive findings for several allergens. Clinic notes from provider indicate that the patient was actively taking multiple medications for rhinitis and asthma.
Medical Necessity · 2017 · IMR MN17-27245

Where the denial was upheld

Worth reading too — these show what an appeal has to overcome.
The patient is a 54-year-old female with a history of asthma and allergies. The patient’s provider indicates the patient has specific IgE disease with a pre-Xolair IgE of 3. In addition, the provider notes the patient has positive allergy testing. The patient’s pulmonary function tests showed an FEV1 of 71% and a post-test FEV1 of 82% showing reversibility. In May 2004, the patient was taking Advair 500/50, Singulair, and Combivent inhaler. She was also taking Zyrtec D, Diflucan QD, Tamoxifen, Prednisone, and Albuterol nebulizer. The submitted notes indicate the patient was experiencing exacerbations and urgent unscheduled visits to her physician.
Medical Necessity · 2004 · IMR MN04-4019
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: An enrollee has requested authorization and coverage for weekly allergy shots for treatment of the enrollee who has sensitivity to numerous allergens. Findings: The physician reviewer found that Subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is a treatment for allergic rhinitis, allergic conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, and stinging insect hypersensitivity that induces immune modulation by administration of gradually escalating doses of allergen. Conventional allergen immunotherapy schedules involve a build up phase and a maintenance phase, at which time the maintenance dose is reached. The maintenance dose, or effective dose, is that which is believed to “provide therapeutic efficacy without significant adverse local or systemic reactions”.
Medical Necessity · 2018 · IMR MN18-28350

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 Tx For Allergies, 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 Tx For Allergies? Use the California record to prepare.

Explain my denial — freeStart my appeal · $9