Pet Scan for Immuno Disorders: 28.6% of denials overturned
In 7 California IMR decisions from 2002 to 2024, reviewers overturned 2 (28.6%). In the last five years: 100.0% of 1. 5 were medical-necessity disputes, 2 experimental/investigational.
By year (last five)
| Year | Decisions | Overturned |
|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 1 | 100.0% |
What the findings mention
| What the findings mention | Decisions | Overturned | All decisions here |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published evidence citedThe findings refer to peer-reviewed or published evidence. | 3 | 66.7% | 28.6% |
Keyword matches on the reviewer’s findings, not causes. A tag that appears mostly in overturned decisions is worth documenting in an appeal; it is not a guarantee.
From recent overturned decisions
“Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: A patient has requested authorization and coverage for positron emission tomography (PET) with concurrently acquired computed tomography (CT) for attenuation correction and anatomical localization imaging; skull base to mid-thigh. Although PET/CT is not considered part of the standard workup of sarcoidosis, there is increased evidence showing that it is a valuable tool in the diagnosis …”
“A 33-year-old female enrollee has requested positron emission tomography (PET) scan for evaluation of her Castleman’s disease. Findings: Two physician reviewers found that there is sufficient medical literature supporting the use of a PET scan in this clinical setting. The study by Szturtz and colleagues stresses the significance of full-body PET/CT scanning during staging and treatment response evaluation. Moreover, Pelosi …”
And one the reviewer upheld
“Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: An enrollee has requested a positron emission tomography (PET) scan for evaluation of her medical condition. Findings: The physician reviewer found that according to the documentation submitted for review, the patient is in remission from her monoblastic sarcoma-acute myeloid leukemia. She has stable graft versus host disease and no signs or symptoms to warrant a …”
- California only: these are decisions by independent reviewers under California's IMR program (plans regulated by the Department of Managed Health Care). Other states and self-funded employer plans use different reviewers and rules.
- Selection: only denials that a member took all the way to IMR appear. Most denials are never appealed, and the ones that reach an external reviewer are not a random sample.
- Overturned means the reviewer disagreed with the plan; it does not mean the treatment worked or that a similar request will be approved.
- Argument tags are keyword matches on the reviewer's findings. They describe what the findings mention, not why the case was decided.
- Categories are DMHC's own labels (treatment sub-category and diagnosis category); 'Other' is a catch-all and is excluded from rankings.
Source: California Department of Managed Health Care, Independent Medical Review (IMR) Determinations, Trend (CHHS Open Data). Public California government data; Apellica's aggregates and tags are CC BY 4.0.
Questions
How often were Pet Scan denials for Immuno Disorders overturned?
In 7 California IMR decisions from 2002 to 2024, reviewers overturned 2 (28.6%). In the last five years: 100.0% of 1. 5 were medical-necessity disputes, 2 experimental/investigational.
What should an appeal document, based on these findings?
Whatever the plan's criteria ask for, shown in the record: the treatments already tried and their results, contraindications to the plan's preferred option, the guideline or evidence that supports the request, and the treating clinician's reasoning written to the criteria. The tag table shows which of these the reviewers mentioned most in overturned cases.
Does a California IMR result apply to my plan?
Only California plans regulated by the Department of Managed Health Care go to IMR. Other states and self-funded employer plans use different reviewers, but they weigh the same things.
Independent reviewers reverse plans when the record answers the criteria. Upload the denial letter; a senior reviewer reads it within 24 hours and tells you in writing whether it can be appealed and how. $0 upfront, 10% of what is recovered, nothing if we do not recover. Not a law firm.