FREE TO READ

Everything here is free to read, and nothing here is a claim about your case. Built from California’s published records and modified by us — not official government data. How these numbers were made.

Condition class · category · California

CNS & neuromuscular denials at external review

When a California health plan denied care for cns & neuromuscular and the enrollee took it to Independent Medical Review, this is what independent physician reviewers decided.

70.7%

Overturned
654 of 925
Era
2021-2025
Jurisdiction
California DMHC IMR
Published class
CNS/ Neuromusc Dis
Median days to decision
33
All years
55.2% of 3,338
654 overturned271 upheld

What stands out here

computed from this class
  • among the highest

    At 70.7%, this is the 3rd highest overturn rate of the 24 conditiones with enough decisions to publish one. Reviewers sustained the plan in the remaining 29.3% of disputes.

  • rising

    It has risen over the published record: 21.3% in 2002 against 75.7% in 2025. What drove that is not in this data — the file holds outcomes, not who chose to appeal or how plans changed their own review.

  • most-cited standard

    Reviewers named FDA more than any other standard here — 264 decisions, which came out at 82.2%, 12 points above the class as a whole. Citing a standard and the outcome share a cause; this is not the effect of naming it.

  • concentrated

    50% of these disputes involved pharmacy alone (n=463, 76.7% overturned), so the headline figure for cns & neuromuscular is largely that pairing.

The trend, with its era

computed
0%25%50%75%100%SB 1410 field mandate75.7%200220052010201520202025Share of decisions overturning the health plan · years below n=30 omitted

Hover the chart for a year’s counts. Series stops at 2025 — report year 2026 uses a different category vocabulary.

What reviewers relied on

3 validated codes

California requires each published decision to carry “a detailed case summary that includes the specific standards, criteria, and medical and scientific evidence, if any, that led to the case decision” (Health & Safety Code § 1374.33(h)(1)(K)). These are the elements our extraction found in this class, split by how the decision came out.

What the reviewer relied onIn overturnsIn upholds
the FDA label or approval status34%n=65418%n=271
a standardised level-of-care instrument1%n=6540%n=271
a California statutory definition0%n=6540%n=271

Read as description, not instruction. These are patterns in what reviewers wrote, not steps to follow, and no combination of them predicts an outcome. Only codes that cleared the validation gate appear — thirteen did not.

Authorities named in this class

computed
  • FDA82.2%264
  • American Headache Society78.4%74
  • American Academy of Neurology83.7%43
  • American College of Rheumatology12
  • NCCN4
  • LOCUS family3
  • American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry1
  • American Academy of Ophthalmology1

A rate here is the outcome of decisions that named the authority, not the effect of naming it. Reviewers cite the standard they applied; the citation and the outcome share a cause.

By treatment

computed
  • Overturned — the reviewer did not sustain the denial
  • Upheld — the reviewer sustained the denial
  • Pharmacy76.7%463
  • Durable medical equipment51.4%111
  • Pain Management75.0%88
  • Diagnostic imaging & screening64.1%78
  • Ear, nose & throat procedures83.9%31
  • Electro, thermal & radiofrequency70.0%30
  • Neurosurgery90.0%30
  • Skilled nursing & inpatient rehab15

Browse all treatment classes · Pick your own pair

The specific treatments inside this class

below n=30, no rate is claimed
  • Other67.8%202
  • Migraine Rx82.5%126
  • Neuromuscular RX90.1%71
  • Nerve Block80.0%60
  • IVIG Therapy62.0%50
  • Botox Injection83.0%47
  • Pain Medication53.3%30
  • Biologics29

By review type

computed
  • Medical Necessity69.4%689
  • Experimental/Investigational74.4%234
  • Urgent Care2

Medical-necessity review asks whether the care is needed. Experimental/investigational review asks whether it is likely to be more beneficial than standard therapy — a harder statutory test, and the rates show it.

Every figure on this page is conditional on a denial having reached external review. Fewer than 1% of denials are appealed internally at all, so this describes denials that were fought to the end — not denials in general — and it describes California only. Who this does not cover.

Free help, first: the California DMHC Help Center files your Independent Medical Review at no cost — 1-888-466-2219, dmhc.ca.gov.