Psoriasis denials at external review

• among the highest

  At 87.5%, this is the 5th highest overturn rate of the 72 conditiones with enough decisions to publish one. Reviewers sustained the plan in the remaining 12.5% of disputes.

• rising

  It has risen over the published record: 31.4% in 2017 against 96.9% 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 — 80 decisions, which came out at 88.8%. Citing a standard and the outcome share a cause; this is not the effect of naming it.

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.

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.

• FDA88.8%80
• American Academy of Dermatology—21
• American College of Rheumatology—3

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.

• Pharmacy87.3%110
• Durable medical equipment—1
• Electro, thermal & radiofrequency—1

Browse all treatment classes · Pick your own pair

• Skin Treatment86.1%72
• Biologics94.3%35
• Arthritis Rx—2
• Other—2
• Anti-inflammatories—1

• Medical Necessity88.2%110
• Experimental/Investigational—2

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.