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

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you cannot stand on your own and take yourself to the bathroom. You state you are a fall risk and need the inpatient rehab to get better. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the stay is not medically necessary.
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 your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. You were admitted for tibial fracture after a fall and has been discharged home. Medical conditions are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. You do not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. You do require physical and
occupational therapy but there is no documented need for an intensive rehabilitation program. Medically necessary services can be provided in a different level of care. There is not a reasonable expectation that you 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 IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the stay is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the stay is not medically necessary.
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 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 atrial fibrillation and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia. Medical conditions 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. The patient does require physical and occupational therapy but there is no documented need for an intensive rehabilitation program. Medically necessary services can be provided in a different level of care. 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 IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Euflexxa.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Euflexxa. You say that you would like the plan to reconsider their denial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested services are not medically necessary.
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 Euflexxa. Our reviewer says that the documentation does not support that the requested Euflexxa is medically reasonable or necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has not trialed viscosupplemental treatments such as Orthovisc, Synvisc, and Synvisc-One. Step therapy, as outlined by the plan, requires these be trialed first. The documentation does not outline contraindications or reasons these medications were not considered or that the plan's required drugs would likely be less effective and/or likely have adverse effects for the enrollee. Without the support of the documentation, Euflexxa is not approved as step criteria have not been met. We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of Euflexxa have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Euflexxa
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Favorable

We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) of the cervical spine.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve MRI. You say that you are appealing with supporting records. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the denial of authorization for this service is correct, because the requested MRI is not medically necessary at this time.
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 MRI. Our reviewer says that the enrollee meets the Medicare criteria for this MRI. Our physician reviewer found an X-Ray of the neck showed moderate cervical disc degeneration. Prior MRI showed significant central stenosis. Electromyography showed evidence of C5 radiculopathy. The enrollee has failed oral medications and a pain medicine specialist referred him to the neurosurgeon due to failure of treatment. Considering this, the enrollee is a candidate for repeat MRI to further evaluate for possible surgery having failed prior treatments. Therefore, this request is medically necessary. We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of MRI have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-approve Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) of the cervical spine.
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 SNF care, for the enrollee.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that the stay is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the stay is not medically necessary.
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 there are no identifiable skilled nursing service needs. There are identifiable skilled therapy service needs. The enrollee does not require skilled nursing or therapy services on a daily basis. This enrollee does not meet severity of illness or intensity of service criteria for an inpatient basis in a 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 SNF care, for the enrollee.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve right genicular nerve block.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve right genicular nerve block. You say that you would like the plan to reconsider their denial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested services are not medically necessary.
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 right genicular nerve block. Our reviewer says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has chronic right knee pain. The enrollee has tried Tylenol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, Hydrocodone, as well as physical therapy and home exercise program. The role of diagnostic genicular nerve blocks and of radiofrequency ablation of these nerves is still the subject
of on-going clinical trials. Therefore, the enrollee does not meet criteria for the requested 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 right genicular nerve block have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve right genicular nerve block
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the repeat fecal occult blood test provided on January 16, 2021.
You asked the Plan to pay for the repeat fecal occult blood test. You say that you would like the Plan to reconsider their denial of payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you had a fecal occult blood test on January 6, 2021. The Plan says you are only covered for one test every 12 months. The Plan says that the fecal occult blood test you received on January 16, 2021 is less than 12 months from the initial test.
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that a Medicare Health Plan must disclose to its members the benefits offered under the plan including applicable conditions and limitations. We looked at the file, the Plan's contract and Medicare rules. The file shows that you received an initial fecal occult blood test on January 6, 2021. Your contract with the Plan clearly says this test is only covered once every 12 months. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the repeat fecal occult blood test provided on January 16, 2021.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services. You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that due to the enrollee's comorbidities they meet criteria for inpatient rehabilitation. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the stay is not medically necessary. 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 coronary artery bypass grafting. Medical conditions 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. The enrollee does require physical and occupational therapy but there is no documented need for an intensive rehabilitation program. Medically necessary services 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 acute IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Favorable

We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve acute inpatient hospital care.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve acute inpatient hospital care. You say that inpatient care is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that inpatient services are not medically necessary in this case, and instead have approved outpatient observation services.
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 pre-approve 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 that this enrollee is not currently on treatment for her condition. This physician reviewer's opinion is that the inpatient care is medically necessary, and there is a reasonable expectation that the enrollee's necessary hospital care (including earlier emergency department and/or observation care) would span at least 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 pre-approve acute inpatient hospital care.
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 acute IRF admission and services. You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you have fallen several times and you do not have the strength to get yourself back up when you fall. You state you need inpatient rehabilitation in order to remain independent. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the stay is not medically necessary. 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 your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. You were admitted for falling and has been discharged home with home health services. You remain weak with episodes of falling. Medical conditions are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. You do not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. You do require physical and occupational therapy but there is no documented need for an intensive rehabilitation program. Medically necessary services can be provided in a different level of care. There is not a reasonable expectation that you 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 IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for an outpatient hospital visit provided on
November 19, 2020.
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for an outpatient hospital visit. You say that the hospital returned
your copayment which meant that no services were received. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the
claims were processed correctly and you are being charged the correct amount.
The rules say a plan must disclose to its enrollees in clear, accurate terms all cost sharing information (such as
copayments, deductibles and coinsurance). Your contract with the Plan clearly says that you must pay a $50
copayment for outpatient hospital observation.
The medical records show that you received an outpatient hospital visit on November 19, 2020. Therefore, you
are responsible to pay the $50 copayment.
You have been asked to pay a $50 copayment for an outpatient hospital visit. An outpatient hospital visit falls
within the outpatient hospital observation benefit category. This means that you have been asked to pay the
correct amount based on your contract with the Plan. This cost sharing is a contractual obligation you agreed to
pay when you enrolled in the Plan. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment
for an outpatient hospital visit provided on November 19, 2020
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 the LTACH care is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee can remain in the current acute setting until such a time as no further acute level care is needed
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 in this case the enrollee has had a prolonged hospital course and continues to desaturate with activity. The enrollee continues to receive acute care services, and these have not been denied. The medical record does not indicate that the enrollee requires services that he is not currently receiving but that would be available at the LTACH facility. The elements of the coverage rules are not satisfied.
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: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the laboratory services provided on May 11, 2020.
You asked the Plan to pay for the laboratory services. You say that you would like the Plan to reconsider their denial of payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services are not covered as billed.
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly.
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. In this case, the claim was billed with an incorrect place of service (POS) code per Medicare guidelines. The records show that the specimen was obtained in an office setting. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the laboratory services provided on May 11, 2020.
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 transfer to an LTACH is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says Medicare coverage criteria are not met.
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 a 92-year-old man for whom admission to a long-term acute care hospital (LTACH) has been requested. At issue is whether LTACH services are medically necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee. The enrollee has a medical history of diabetes, hypertension, morbid obesity, sleep apnea and dementia. The enrollee was admitted to the acute care hospital on July 14, 2021 with acute respiratory failure. The chest X-ray was improved on July 20, 2021. On July 21, 2021 the enrollee was on high-flow nasal cannula oxygen. He was receiving supportive care for acute metabolic encephalopathy.
Long term acute care hospitals (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 enrollee is receiving acute hospital care, and acute care services have not been denied. 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. The requested LTACH services are not medically necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee at this time. 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.