Home / Treatments / Wilderness Therapy
Wilderness Therapy denials: what the review data shows
Independent reviewers have decided 16 published cases where an insurer denied Wilderness Therapy — and they overturned the insurer 12.5% of the time. A denial for Wilderness Therapy is a starting position, not a final answer.
Published decisions
16
2001–2026
Overturned
12.5%
2 denials reversed
Conditions behind wilderness therapy denials
What insurers denied — and how those fights ended.
| Category | Decisions | Overturned |
|---|---|---|
| Depression | 7 | 14.3% |
| Anxiety | 3 | 33.3% |
| Autism Spectrum Disorder | 3 | 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. | 9 | 22.2% |
Medical Necessity The plan said the care wasn’t medically necessary. The most common fight, and the most winnable. | 7 | 0% |
Typical time to a decision
22 days
Most land between 21 and 29 days
Handled as urgent
12.5%
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
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: An enrollee has requested reimbursement for any or all of the wilderness therapy. Wilderness treatment has evolved a great deal in the last decade, transitioning from an unregulated field with limited consistent evidence to a more standardized treatment option, termed outdoor behavioral health treatment, that is more well-accepted as particularly effective in adolescents with substance use disorders, legal issues, at risk for long-term criminal behavior, and with significant mental health issues impacting academic and family functioning. Current medical literature supports the results for these various specific populations. Wilderness therapy programs, or outdoor behavioral health programs, are now more strictly monitored, and there is an accreditation body to certify outdoor behavioral health programs.
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: The parent of an enrollee has requested reimbursement and authorization and coverage for wilderness therapy.Findings: Two of three physician reviewers found that the current medical literature supports the use of wilderness therapy in this clinical setting. Behrens and colleagues noted that a longitudinal outcome study of wilderness therapy programs has shown that youth in the study experienced significant decreases in suicidal ideation, anxiety, depression, substance abuse, social conflict, sleep disruption, violence, as well as an overall reduction in externalizing behaviors such as impulsivity, defiance, and hostility. Furthermore, these youth demonstrated improvements in work and academic functioning during the follow-up portion of the study.
Where the denial was upheld
Worth reading too — these show what an appeal has to overcome.
Findings: The physician reviewer found that The patient has requested reimbursement for wilderness therapy services. The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) and American Association for Community Psychiatry (AACP) have unified the Child and Adolescent Level of Care Utilization System (CALOCUS) and the Child and Adolescent Service Intensity Instrument (CASII) into a single instrument, the Child and Adolescent Level of Care/Service Intensity Utilization System (CALOCUS-CASII). This instrument is a standardized tool used to determine the intensity of services needed for children and adolescents, 6-18 years of age, presenting with psychiatric, substance use, medical and/or developmental concerns. Using CALOCUS-CASII, providers score patients on a scale of 1-5 using a six-pronged Dimensional Rating System.
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: The patient has requested reimbursement for wilderness therapy services and/or residential treatment center (RTC) services. The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) and American Association for Community Psychiatry (AACP) have unified the Child and Adolescent Level of Care Utilization System (CALOCUS) and the Child and Adolescent Service Intensity Instrument (CASII) into a single instrument, the Child and Adolescent Level of Care/Service Intensity Utilization System (CALOCUS-CASII). This instrument is a standardized tool used to determine the intensity of services needed for children and adolescents, 6-18 years of age, presenting with psychiatric, substance use, medical and/or developmental concerns. Using CALOCUS-CASII, providers score patients on a scale of 1-5 using a six-pronged Dimensional Rating System.
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 Wilderness 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.