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

Obesity denials at external review

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

87.6%

Overturned
1,128 of 1,287
Era
2021-2025
Jurisdiction
California DMHC IMR
Published class
Obesity
Median days to decision
42
All years
87.3% of 1,324
1,128 overturned159 upheld

What stands out here

computed from this class
  • among the highest

    At 87.6%, this is the 4th highest overturn rate of the 72 conditiones with enough decisions to publish one. Reviewers sustained the plan in the remaining 12.4% of disputes.

  • the question matters

    The outcome turns on which question was put to the reviewer: 88.3% on medical necessity (n=1,236) against 70.6% on experimental/investigational (n=51) — a gap of 18 points inside the same condition.

  • rising

    It has risen over the published record: 76.9% in 2022 against 92.2% 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 — 661 decisions, which came out at 90.0%. Citing a standard and the outcome share a cause; this is not the effect of naming it.

The trend, with its era

computed
0%25%50%75%100%92.2%20222025Share 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 status53%n=1,12843%n=159
a standardised level-of-care instrument0%n=1,1280%n=159
a California statutory definition0%n=1,1283%n=159

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
  • FDA90.0%661
  • American Gastroenterological Association21
  • American Diabetes Association7
  • American College of Cardiology5
  • American Academy of Pediatrics4
  • American Heart Association4
  • American Society of Plastic Surgeons2
  • American Headache Society1

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
  • Pharmacy89.2%1,236
  • General surgery58.8%34
  • Reconstructive & plastic procedures6
  • Diagnostic imaging & screening4
  • Durable medical equipment2
  • Diagnostic & physician evaluation2
  • Outpatient rehabilitation2
  • Special procedures1

Browse all treatment classes · Pick your own pair

The specific treatments inside this class

below n=30, no rate is claimed
  • Weight Control89.3%1,230
  • Bariatric Surgery61.3%31
  • Diabetic Medication5
  • Liposuction4
  • Other4
  • Lab Work3
  • Physical Therapy2
  • Revision Procedures2

By review type

computed
  • Medical Necessity88.3%1,236
  • Experimental/Investigational70.6%51

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.