Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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 you are weak and need IRF care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you do not require an intensive rehabilitation program.

The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 

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 patient does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While the documentation does support a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for a intensive, multi-disciplinary rehabilitation 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. 

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: 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 LTACHs do not provide clinical advantage over a non LTACH acute care hospitals.

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 there is no documentation provided indicating medical necessity for admission to a LTACH. The enrollee is receiving appropriate care at the present acute care hospital. The enrollee does not require services at the LTACH that are not available at the acute care hospital where he is currently receiving care. There are no services available at the LTACH that the enrollee requires that are not available at the health care setting being offered by the health plan. The requested LTACH services medically necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee and able to be furnished safely and effectively only on an inpatient basis. 

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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Intracept procedure for the enrollee.

You asked the Plan to pre-approve the procedure. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says medical studies haven't proven that this service is helpful for treatment of the health problem.

The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that items and services that are not medically necessary are 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 the procedure. Our reviewer says that the requested services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found the requested procedure is experimental for the treatment of low back pain. More research is needed to show safety and efficacy. 

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 procedure have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Intracept procedure for the enrollee.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve pain management services to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve OON services. You say that you were previously treated by this provider. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there are in-network providers that can provide this 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 services at issue in this appeal. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pre-approve these services. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve pain management services to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve physical medicine and rehab services to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.

You asked the Plan to pre-approve OON services. You say that you are having a hard time finding a doctor to prescribe a pain patch. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there are in-network providers available.

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 services at issue in this appeal. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pre-approve these services. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve physical medicine and rehab services to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Favorable

We decided that the Plan has to pay for an inpatient stay at the hospital for the enrollee.
You asked the Plan to pay for acute inpatient hospital care. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that this would be better as an observation stay.
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that inpatient hospital care is covered when the doctor expects the patient to need hospital care that crosses at least two midnights. In rare and unusual cases, consideration may be given to inpatient hospital care when the hospital stay does not cross two midnights or more. 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 pay for acute inpatient hospital care. Our reviewer says that the documentation supports that the criteria for inpatient payment are met in this case. Our physician reviewer found the review determined that the record showed that at the time of inpatient admission the admitting physician reasonably expected that the enrollee's necessary hospital care (including earlier ED and/or observation care) would span two midnights. We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of acute inpatient hospital care have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for an inpatient stay at the hospital for the enrollee.
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: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve continued skilled nursing facility (SNF) care after August 20, 2021.

You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that the enrollee cannot go to a rehabilitation home due to a COVID-19 lockdown, so it would be counterintuitive to release her now. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the denial of authorization for continued SNF care is correct.

The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for care in a SNF when the four factors listed in the Medicare rules section 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 care. Our reviewer says that daily skilled services are not necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee does not have daily skilled nursing needs that require the specialized skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional nurse. The enrollee does not have daily skilled therapy needs that require the specialized skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional therapist. The enrollee does not require daily skilled nursing and/or skilled therapy on an inpatient basis in a skilled nursing facility (SNF) setting. 

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 care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve continued skilled nursing facility (SNF) care after August 20, 2021.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Positron emission tomography and computed tomography (PET/CT) scan.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a PET/CT scan. You say that you would like the Plan to reconsider their denial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet Medicare criteria.
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that PET imaging for initial anti-cancer strategy is non-covered for enrollees with prostate cancer. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Positron emission tomography and computed tomography (PET/CT) scan.
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 alternate settings can be requested and reviewed.

The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 

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 complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The enrollee was admitted for a ventriculoperitoneal shunt. Medical problems are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. The enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While the medical record supports a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different level of care. There is not a reasonable expectation that this enrollee will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF.

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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a continuous glucose monitor.

You asked the Plan to pre-approve the monitor. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the clinical information does not indicate a diagnosis of diabetes.

The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that therapeutic CGMs are considered medically reasonable and necessary for enrollees with diabetes who perform blood glucose testing at least four times per day, use insulin with at least three daily injections, and require frequent self-adjustment of insulin dosage based on the blood glucose testing results and have had an in-person visit with their treating physician to assesses adherence to their CGM regimen and diabetes treatment plan.

We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The documentation indicates that you do not have a diagnosis of diabetes. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the monitor have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a continuous glucose monitor.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Freestyle libre continuous glucose monitor (CGM) (K0553, K0554).
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a Freestyle libre continuous glucose monitor (CGM).. You say that although the enrollee only takes insulin twice a day, it is the equivalent of taking it three times a day. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requirements for coverage have not been met.
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that therapeutic CGMs are considered medically reasonable and necessary for enrollees with diabetes who perform blood glucose testing at least four times per day, use insulin with at least three daily injections, and require frequent self-adjustment of insulin dosage based on the blood glucose testing results and have had an in-person visit with their treating physician to assesses adherence to their CGM regimen and diabetes treatment plan.
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The documentation indicates that the enrollee does not use insulin with at least three daily injections. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of a Freestyle libre continuous glucose monitor (CGM). have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Freestyle libre continuous glucose monitor (CGM) (K0553, K0554).
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Evenity.

You asked the Plan to pre-approve Evenity. You say that you are unable to give yourself injections every day. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you have not tried and failed Forteo and Tymlos.

Medicare covers Part B medications when they are reasonable and necessary but allows health plans to implement step therapy criteria. The Plan's contract indicates that it has implemented such criteria for certain Part B medications.

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 Evenity. Our physician reviewer found that you have a diagnosis of osteoporosis. The Plan requires a trial of Forteo or Tymlos before they will approve the requested drug. In this case, the patient has not tried and failed the required drugs. There is no documentation provided indicating that the Plan's required drugs would likely be less effective or likely have adverse effects. 

We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of Evenity have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Evenity.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve admission to a skilled nursing facility (SNF) for the enrollee.

You asked the Plan to pre-approve the admission. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there hasn't been any noticeable progress in therapy.

The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for care in a SNF when the four factors listed in the Medicare rules section 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 the admission. Our reviewer says that the requested services are not medically reasonable or necessary. Our physician reviewer found there are no identifiable skilled nursing or skilled therapy service needs. The enrollee does not require skilled nursing or therapy services on a daily basis. The enrollee does not meet severity of illness or intensity of service criteria for an inpatient basis in a skilled nursing facility setting. 

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 admission have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve admission to a skilled nursing facility (SNF) for the enrollee.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the lower partial denture (D5214).
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the lower partial denture (D5214). The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the service 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 Plan's 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 the lower partial denture (D5214).
Appeal type: Outpatient Mental Health
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a psychotherapy visit (90837) provided on March 27, 2021, by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
You asked the Plan to pay for a psychotherapy visit. You say that it is your understanding that there is an exception from the Plan for the member due to the increased need of behavioral health during the Coronavirus. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says services were provided by an out-of-network provider without prior authorization.
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 pay for care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving emergencies, out of area urgent care and pre-approved care. The requested provider in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan had network providers available who could have provided the items/services at issue in this appeal. The Plan did not pre-approve the item/service at issue. The records provided for review do not show that the services at issue were urgent or emergent. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay for these items/services. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a psychotherapy visit (90837) provided on March 27, 2021, by an out-of-network (OON) provider
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an auricular stimulator.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the stimulator. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says medical studies have not proven that this device is helpful for treatment of the health problem.
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that acupuncture for stimulation of auricular points is not a covered Medicare benefit. The requested service is not covered by Medicare. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the stimulator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an auricular stimulator.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the acute inpatient hospitalization.
You asked the Plan to pay for acute inpatient hospitalization. You say that the service is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the service is not medically necessary.
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that inpatient hospital care is covered when the doctor expects the patient to need hospital care that crosses at least two midnights. In rare and unusual cases, consideration may be given to inpatient hospital care when the hospital stay does not cross two midnights or more.
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 pay for acute inpatient hospitalization. Our reviewer says that the documentation does not support that the criteria for inpatient payment are met in this case. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee is medically stable and has been provided medical clearance to undergo an elective procedure. The procedure is currently approved as an ambulatory procedure. There is no documentation provided to support the expectation the enrollee will require a greater than 2 midnight stay. We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of acute inpatient hospitalization have not been met. Specifically, medically necessary services can be obtained in an observational setting. This means admission to an acute inpatient hospital is not medically necessary or reasonable. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the acute inpatient hospitalization.