Skin Treatment denials at external review

• rising

  It has risen over the published record: 30.0% in 2017 against 82.5% in 2024. 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 — 156 decisions, which came out at 84.6%. Citing a standard and the outcome share a cause; this is not the effect of naming it.

• concentrated

  80% of these disputes involved skin alone (n=197, 81.2% overturned), so the headline figure for skin treatment is largely that pairing.

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.

• FDA84.6%156
• American Academy of Dermatology—24
• American College of Rheumatology—1

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.

• Skin81.2%197
• Immune disorders84.4%45
• Digestive & GI—2
• Ear, nose & throat—1
• Genitourinary & kidney—1

Browse all condition classes · Pick your own pair

• Psoriasis86.1%72
• Dermatitis84.9%53
• Alopecia86.5%37
• Eczema87.5%32
• Other—24
• Acne—10
• Autoimmune Disease—5
• Rosacea—4

• Medical Necessity81.4%220
• Experimental/Investigational—26

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.