Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services for the 
enrollee. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that these services are medically necessary. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the enrollee is receiving appropriate care at the present acute 
care facility. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that LTACH services are covered if they are medically 
necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the LTACH services. Our reviewer says 
that the requested LTACH care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. LTACHs are 
certified as acute care hospitals, and in general, LTACHs do not provide clinical services that are materially 
different than those of short term acute care hospitals. The documentation does not support that the enrollee in 
this case requires services at the LTACH that are not available at the acute care hospital where he is currently 
receiving care. Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee's condition does not meet Medicare criteria for 
LTACH services. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services for the enrollee.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that these services are medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says that you can safely receive the services you need in other settings. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described above. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. You 
do not require the intensity of services provided at an IRF. Specifically, you are not shown to be able to 
perform fifteen hours per week of rehabilitative services with regular physician evaluation. Your care needs 
can be met at a lower level of care. Our physician reviewer found that your condition does not meet Medicare 
criteria for IRF care. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve proton beam therapy. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve proton beam therapy. You say that all of the leading cancer centers in the 
United States are using proton beam therapy with better outcomes. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 
that the denial of authorization for this service is correct, because proton beam therapy is not medically 
necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that if there are no specific coverage rules for an item 
or service, then that item or service will be covered when it is medically necessary.  
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve proton beam therapy. Our reviewer says 
that the requested items/services are considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found for you, prior radiation to the left chest and right breast makes another course of radiotherapy 
an exceptional case. Any form of radiotherapy, including proton beam therapy, will be associated with high 
risks and there may be no benefit for proton therapy. However, with 2 courses of prior radiotherapy, any effort 
to minimize dose to normal tissue is imperative, and proton therapy is plausibly the best means to achieve that. 
Therefore, the potential benefit from proton therapy is clinically meaningful and would be furnished in 
accordance with accepted standards of care. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of proton beam therapy have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to 
pre-approve proton beam therapy.  
 
If the Plan does not agree with our decision, they can ask us to open a case again. We only open a case again 
if we believe there was a mistake or if there is new information to review. The Plan has to show us the mistake 
and/or send us the new information. This does not happen often. If we decide to open the case again, we will 
send you a letter.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that you disagree with the denial. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the services are not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that LTACH services are covered if they are medically 
necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the LTACH services. Our reviewer says 
that the requested LTACH care is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee was 
admitted to the acute care hospital (ACH) on August 8, 2020 and was intubated on August 22, 2020. She 
subsequently received a tracheotomy. She has since been weaned to a tracheotomy collar. There is no evidence 
that the enrollee requires services that are not currently available.  As LTACHs and ACHs are licensed to 
provide the same level of care, there is no advantage in transferring the enrollee to the LTACH.  The enrollee 
can remain at the current ACH until such time no acute services are required. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services for the enrollee. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that these services are medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says that the enrollee's needs can be met at a lower level of care. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described above. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. The 
complexity of the patient's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not require an acute hospital inpatient 
stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The patient was admitted for urosepsis and acute 
kidney injury. All medical problems are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. The 
patient does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational 
therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While the record supports a need for physical and 
occupational therapy, it does not support a need for an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. There is not a 
reasonable expectation that this patient will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive 
rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF. Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee's condition 
does not meet Medicare criteria for IRF care. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services for the enrollee.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Opdivo for the enrollee. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Opdivo. You say that this is medically necessary for the enrollee. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says that the use of Opdivo is not supported for the enrollee's condition. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare may pay for unlabeled uses for anti-cancer 
drugs if they are medically accepted as safe and effective or appropriate for the particular use.  
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve Opdivo. Our reviewer says that Opdivo 
is not medically reasonable and necessary for the enrollee in this case. Opdivo is not FDA-approved for the 
enrollees diagnosis. The use is not supported by one of the major drug compendia or by clinical research that 
appears in a CMS-approved medical journal. The use of Opdivo is not listed as not indicated, not supported or 
not recommended in any of the compendia. Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee's condition does not 
meet Medicare criteria for coverage of Opdivo. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Opdivo have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pre-approve Opdivo for the enrollee.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) of the neck (72141). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the MRI. You say that the MRI is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says that coverage criteria has not been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that MRIs are covered only when they are medically 
necessary.  
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the MRI. Our reviewer says that the 
MRI is medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee suffers from cervicalgia with prior 
negative CT scan. The MRI is medically necessary to determine the cause of the enrollee's pain. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the MRI have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-approve 
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) of the neck (72141).  
 
If the Plan does not agree with our decision, they can ask us to open a case again. We only open a case again 
if we believe there was a mistake or if there is new information to review. The Plan has to show us the mistake 
and/or send us the new information. This does not happen often. If we decide to open the case again, we will 
send you a letter.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a transthoracic Echocardiogram (93306). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the echocardiogram. You say that the procedure is medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says coverage criteria has not been met. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that transthoracic echocardiograms are covered when 
medically necessary. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the echocardiogram. Our reviewer says 
that the requested echocardiogram is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has 
hypertension but no documented heart disease, no documented cardiac symptoms, no documented cardiac 
physical exam and no documented electrocardiogram. In this circumstance the very limited information 
provided does not support the medical necessity for an electrocardiogram. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the echocardiogram have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve a transthoracic Echocardiogram (93306).
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Synvisc. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve these services. You say that you disagree with the denial. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the services are not covered. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that, in order to be eligible for coverage under Part B, 
drugs/biologicals must represent an expense to the rendering physician and be included in the physician's bill. 
 
In this case, we have confirmed that the requested medication will be dispensed by a pharmacy and will be 
brought to the office for administration. Since the medication does not represent an expense to the physician 
and will not be included in the physician's bill, it is not eligible for Part B coverage. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pre-approve Synvisc.  
 
Benefits for these services may be available under Medicare Part D. Contact the Plan that administers Part D 
benefits for further information concerning any benefits and appeal rights.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the medical services to be provided by an out of 
network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the out-of-network services. You say that you would like reconsideration 
because you need a provider who speaks Russian. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there are in-
network options available to service your needs including a translator service. 
 
Medicare rules say that plans can require enrollees to get care from network providers. The contract with the 
Plan says that the Plan has to pre-approve care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving 
emergencies, out of area urgent care and care that cannot be provided by network providers. 
 
The requested provider in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan has network providers 
available who can provide the items/services at issue in this appeal. We found no exception that would require 
the Plan to pre-approve these items/services. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve 
the medical services to be provided by an out of network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve admission to a long term acute care hospital (LTACH) 
for the enrollee. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the services could be provided in another setting, such as an acute 
rehabilitation facility, skilled nursing facility, nursing facility, outpatient or home care. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that LTACH services are covered if they are medically 
necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the LTACH services. Our reviewer says 
that the requested LTACH care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee is currently undergoing treatment at an ACH for symptoms related to 
metastatic lung cancer. The enrollee is not intubated/ventilated. There is no evidence that the enrollee requires 
services that are not currently available. The enrollee can remain at the current ACH until such time no acute 
services are required. The enrollee can then be transferred/discharged to a lower level of care for any ongoing 
long term care needs. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve admission to a long term acute care hospital (LTACH) for the enrollee.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve admission to an inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) for 
the enrollee. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the services can be safely received in other settings, for example, a skilled nursing 
facility, home with home health and home physical therapy, or home with outpatient therapy. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described above. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee does not require the intensity of services provided at an IRF.  
Specifically, the enrollee is not shown to require fifteen hours per week of rehabilitative services and regular 
physician evaluation. The enrollees care needs can be met at a lower level of care (ex. SNF/SAR). 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve admission to an inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) for the enrollee.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve osseous surgery. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the surgery. You say that you have difficulty eating. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says this is not a covered benefit. 
 
Medicare generally does not cover dental services. However, the Plan offers a dental benefit that exceeds 
Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plans coverage rules apply in this case. 
 
Though the Plan offers a dental benefit in excess of Medicare coverage, the requested items or services are not 
among those covered under this benefit. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve 
osseous surgery.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) services for the enrollee. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF services. You say that these services are medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says that there is no documentation supporting that the member requires services 
that cannot be provided at current facility. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for care in a SNF when the four factors 
listed above are met. Custodial care is not covered. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve SNF services. Our reviewer says that 
daily skilled services are not necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee's condition does not 
meet Medicare criteria for SNF services. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of SNF services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) services for the enrollee.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the services are necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says based on the documentation provided, coverage criteria has not been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described above. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee does not require the intensity of services provided at an IRF. 
Specifically, the enrollee is not shown to require fifteen hours per week of rehabilitative services and regular 
physician evaluation. The enrollees care needs can be met at a lower level of care. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.