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 · subcategory · California

Not classified denials at external review

When a California health plan denied care for not classified and the enrollee took it to Independent Medical Review, this is what independent physician reviewers decided.

37.3%

Overturned
25 of 67
Era
2021-2025
Jurisdiction
California DMHC IMR
Published class
Not Applicable
Median days to decision
48
All years
57.0% of 1,157
25 overturned42 upheld

The trend, with its era

computed
0%25%50%75%100%SB 1410 field mandate17.9%201320152018Share 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 status5%n=42
a standardised level-of-care instrument0%n=42
a California statutory definition0%n=42

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
  • FDA5
  • NCCN5
  • American College of Cardiology4
  • American College of Rheumatology4
  • American Heart Association3
  • American Academy of Pediatrics2
  • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists2
  • American Diabetes Association1

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
  • Diagnostic imaging & screening35.9%39
  • Special procedures18
  • Preventive health screening3
  • OB-GYN procedures2
  • Pharmacy2
  • Durable medical equipment1
  • Emergency & urgent care1
  • Mental Health1

Browse all treatment classes · Pick your own pair

The specific treatments inside this class

below n=30, no rate is claimed
  • General Anesthesia14
  • Lab Work12
  • Genetic/Genomic Test8
  • MRI6
  • CT Scan3
  • Colonoscopy/Sigmoid3
  • Ultrasound3
  • Adult Immunization2

By review type

computed
  • Medical Necessity37.0%46
  • Experimental/Investigational20
  • Urgent Care1

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.