Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Levalbuterol.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Levalbuterol. You say that you would like the Plan to reconsider their denial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says Levalbuterol is not covered under the enrollee's Medicare Part B benefit.
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare Part B generally does not pay for self-administered drugs. The self-administered drugs requested here are not among the types which are covered by Medicare Part B. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Levalbuterol.
Benefits for Levalbuterol 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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Vertiflex device.

You asked the Plan to pre-approve a Vertiflex device. You say that the requested Vertiflex device is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested Vertiflex device is 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 a Vertiflex device. Our reviewer says that the requested Vertiflex device is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee is with spinal stenosis. The Vertiflex device is experimental. More research is needed to show safety and efficacy of the device.

We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of a Vertiflex device have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Vertiflex device.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the testosterone injection provided on April 23, 2021 by an out-of-network (OON) provider.

You asked the Plan to pay for the testosterone injection. You say that you would like the authorization approved and the claim reprocessed. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says no prior authorization was obtained.

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 did not pre-approve the item/service at issue. 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 the testosterone injection provided on April 23, 2021 by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve home health physical therapy (PT) services.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve home health PT services. You say that the services are medically necessary.
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says no additional medical records or updated home health orders have
been received. The Plan also says that the criteria has not been met.
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that home health care services may be covered if it is
medically necessary for the enrollee to receive skilled nursing or therapy. A doctor must certify the need for
home health care services.
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 home health PT services. Our reviewer
says that the requested home health physical therapy services are not medically necessary. Our physician
reviewer found the provided documentation does not indicate that the enrollee has physical therapy needs. The
reviewer also found that the enrollee is not homebound. Therefore, the reviewer found that the requested home
health PT is not shown to be medically necessary or reasonable.
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that
Medicare rules for coverage of home health PT services have not been met. Specifically, the record does not
indicate that any skilled home health services are required. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to
pre-approve home health physical therapy (PT) 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.

You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you have been approved for admission by the IRF. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the denial of authorization for IRF service is correct.

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. While the documentation does support a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. 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 inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Favorable

We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve Cetuximab, Irinotecan, Aloxi, and Pegfilgrastim.

You asked the Plan to pre-approve Cetuximab, Irinotecan, Aloxi, and Pegfilgrastim. You say that the requested Cetuximab, Irinotecan, Aloxi, and Pegfilgrastim are medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the requested Cetuximab, Irinotecan, Aloxi, and Pegfilgrastim are not medically necessary.

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 Cetuximab, Irinotecan, Aloxi, and Pegfilgrastim. Our reviewer says that the requested Cetuximab, Irinotecan, Aloxi, and Pegfilgrastim are medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the requested use of Cetuximab, Irinotecan, Aloxi, and Pegfilgrastim is FDA-approved for the enrollee's diagnosis. The requested use of Cetuximab, Irinotecan, Aloxi, and Pegfilgrastim is approved in metastatic/recurrent disease. The documentation supports that the requested use of Cetuximab, Irinotecan, Aloxi, and Pegfilgrastim is safe and effective and otherwise reasonable and necessary for this enrollee. 

We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of Cetuximab, Irinotecan, Aloxi, and Pegfilgrastim have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-approve Cetuximab, Irinotecan, Aloxi, and Pegfilgrastim.

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 inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the requested admission to an IRF is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested admission to an IRF 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 do not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. You do 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 an intensive, multi-disciplinary rehabilitation program. 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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Vertiflex Superion device placement surgery.

You asked the Plan to pre-approve Vertiflex Superion device placement surgery. You say that you were excited about this solution until it was denied. 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 Vertiflex Superion device placement surgery. Our reviewer says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found you have low back pain. The Vertiflex device is experimental. More research is needed to show safety and efficacy of the device. Therefore, you do 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 Vertiflex Superion device placement surgery have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Vertiflex Superion device placement surgery.
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 requested admission to an IRF is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested admission to an IRF 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 do not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. You do 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 an intensive, multi-disciplinary rehabilitation program. 

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: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve additional mileage.

You asked the Plan to pre-approve additional mileage. You say that you would like the Plan to reconsider your request. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says your destination is 135 miles one-way from your home which is 85 miles over the plan limit of 50 miles one-way.

Medicare does not cover transport in a vehicle that is not an ambulance. However, the Plan offers a transportation benefit that exceeds Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plan's coverage rules apply in this case. The Plan covers unlimited one-way transportation trips per year, not to exceed 50 miles per one-way trip.

We looked at your request, the records in the case file, and the rules. The file shows that your destination is 135 miles one-way from your home which is 85 miles over the plan limit of 50 miles one-way. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve additional mileage.
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. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you have not completed the full course of care in the hospital.
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 physician reviewer found that you were admitted to the acute hospital for an aortic repair. Your hospital course was complicated by a small bowel obstruction. You are receiving appropriate care at the present acute care hospital. You do not require services at the LTACH that are not available at the acute care hospital where you are currently receiving care. There are no services available at the LTACH that you require that are not available at the health care setting being offered by the health plan. Therefore, the requested LTACH services are not 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 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.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you have had extensive hospitalization and can participate in 3 hours per day of therapy. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the denial of authorization for IRF service is correct.
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.
While the documentation does support a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. 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 inpatient rehabilitation facility (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 you want to get back to being independent. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you are unable to tolerate 3 hours of therapy a day.

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 physician reviewer found that you were admitted to the acute care hospital for surgical repair of a hip fracture after a fall. Your medical problems are stable. There are no complex nursing needs. 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. While the documentation does support a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for an intensive, multi-disciplinary rehabilitation program.

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 acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.

You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the IRF admission is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says your needs can be met at a different 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 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 based on the medical records provided the complexity of your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. It is not clear you would be able to fully benefit and/or participate in an IRF 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.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home visit (99342) provided on May 20, 2020 by an OON provider.
You asked the Plan to pay for the home visit. You say that prior authorization is not required for urgent/emergent care in the home and other locations. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says prior authorization was not obtained.
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 did not pre-approve the item/service at issue. 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 the home visit (99342) provided on May 20, 2020 by an OON provider.
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
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 the enrollee wants to improve his quality of life. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee has not tried and failed Gel-One, Orthovisc, Synvisc, Synvisc-One, or Visco-3.
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 physician reviewer found that the enrollee has osteoarthritis of the knees. The Plan requires a trial of Gel-One, Orthovisc, Synvisc, Synvisc-One, or Visco-3 before they will approve the requested drug. In this case, the enrollee 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 for the enrollee. 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