Use case 5 · Sensitivity analysis on national data
The denials nobody appeals
The pattern
Most denials are never appealed, so a plan never learns whether they would hold up. National data shows how large the untested group is.
- Question
- How many denials would fail if challenged?
- Lane
- All lanes
- Basis
- KFF national data
What METRIS does
- Track overturn rates by service, vendor and AI tool version
- Model which unappealed denials resemble overturned ones
- Flag services where the hidden error is likely largest
Medicare Advantage prior authorization, 2024
Of 4.1 million denials, only 0.47 million were appealed and 0.38 million partially or fully overturned. 3.63 million were never tested.
Method
- Decisions
- 52.8 million (KFF)
- Denied
- 4.1 million, 7.7%
- Appealed
- 11.5% of denials
- Overturned
- 80.7% of appeals, partially or fully
Selection into appeal is not random, so the true rate among unappealed denials is unknown. A sensitivity analysis shows the stakes across every plausible value instead of assuming one.
How many unappealed denials could be wrong
Appealed denials are not a random sample, so 80.7% is probably higher than the rate among unappealed denials, but no one knows by how much. Even at 10%, 0.36 million unappealed denials would not hold up, about as many as were overturned.
Reproducibility
Arithmetic on KFF's published rates; no random draws. Python with NumPy 2.5.3 and SciPy.
Sources
A statistical study of a pattern, not of any event. It identifies no organization or person. Simulated figures use synthetic data; published figures are industry-wide.