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 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 can safely receive the services needed 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. 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 enrollee's care 
needs can be met at a lower level of care. 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: 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 can safely receive this care in another setting. 
 
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. The patient 
is currently undergoing treatment at an acute care hospital (ACH). The enrollee was transiently 
intubated/ventilated, but is no longer intubated/ventilated. 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. The enrollee can then be transferred/discharged to a lower level 
of care for any ongoing long term care needs. 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 for you. 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 and 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: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve admission to a Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF admission. You say that the enrollee requires a slower-paced 
rehabilitation program. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the denial of authorization for 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 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 admission. 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. While 
the enrollee does have skilled therapy needs, these needs are not on a daily basis. 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. 
 
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 admission have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve admission to a Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF).
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a power wheelchair and attachments to be provided by 
an out of network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve these services. You say that these services are medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says that medically necessary care is available in network. 
 
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 
a power wheelchair and attachments to be provided by an out of network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve ondansetron. 
 
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 self-administered drugs are not covered. 
 
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 ondansetron.  
 
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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a trial of a spinal cord stimulator (SCS). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the SCS trial. You say that you have tried many different medications to 
address your pain but the side effects have made them ineffective. You were recommended for this stimulator 
as an option to treat your pain. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this cannot be covered until there 
has been a psychological evaluation. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that a spinal cord stimulator trial can be covered only for 
patients who have undergone careful screening, evaluation and diagnosis by a multidisciplinary team prior to 
implantation. Such screening must include a psychological evaluation.  
 
The file does not show that a psychological evaluation has been conducted in conjunction with this request for 
a spinal cord stimulator trial. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a trial of a 
spinal cord stimulator (SCS).
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Armour thyroid for the enrollee. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve this drug. You say that this is medically necessary for the enrollee. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says that this is not covered under Part B. 
 
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 Armour thyroid for the 
enrollee.  
 
Benefits for this drug 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 placement of an interspinous device (22869, 22870). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the placement of an interspinous device. You say that the procedure is 
medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested procedure is considered 
investigational and is not covered. 
 
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 placement of an interspinous 
device. Our reviewer says that the requested procedure is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer 
found the enrollee has had 2 prior intervertebral spacers placed. This would be a third spacer. There is no 
published data supporting a third spacer placement. The evidence in the available peer-reviewed medical 
literature does not clearly support that interspinous distraction devices are safe and effective in the treatment of 
lumbar spinal stenosis. The effectiveness, side effects, recovery time, and long-term outcomes have not been 
well established. 
 
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 placement of an interspinous device have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve placement of an interspinous device (22869, 22870).
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve continued skilled nursing facility (SNF) services. 
 
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 daily skilled nurse or therapist need. 
 
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 your condition does not meet 
Medicare criteria for continued 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 continued skilled nursing facility (SNF) services.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Supartz for the enrollee. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Supartz. You say that the enrollee needs this or the diagnosis of bilateral 
osteoarthritis of the knees. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that they have not received information 
stating that the enrollee has tried the prescription drug alternative(s) required by the plan. 
 
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 Supartz. Our reviewer says that Supartz 
is not medically reasonable and necessary for the enrollee in this case. The documentation does not support that 
the enrollee has tried and failed Synvisc or Synvisc One and Euflexxa or that they would likely be less 
effective, and/or would likely have adverse effects for the enrollee in this case. Our physician reviewer found 
that the enrollee's condition does not meet step therapy criteria for Supartz. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Supartz have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pre-approve Supartz for the enrollee.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a power seat elevation feature (E2300) for the enrollee. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a power seat elevation feature. You say that this is medically necessary for 
the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that this is not covered by Medicare. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that a power seat elevation feature is non-covered 
because it is not primarily medical in nature. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve 
a power seat elevation feature (E2300) for the enrollee.
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 the request does not meet medical necessity as records did not indicate 
that there is a need for an intense and complex care. 
 
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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve placement of a Superion interspinous process stabilizer. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the Superion device. You say that this treatment should be allowed. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says there are insufficient studies supporting this treatment is superior to 
standard spinal surgery. 
 
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 Superion device. Our reviewer says 
that the requested services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found the requested spacer is experimental at this time. More research is needed to show safety and 
efficacy. There is also no documentation of spinal instability. This treatment is 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 Superion device have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve placement of a Superion interspinous process stabilizer.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Zioptan Eye Drops 0.0015%. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Zioptan. You say that Zioptan is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says this drug is not eligible for coverage under the Part B medical 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 Zioptan Eye Drops 
0.0015%.  
 
Benefits for Zioptan 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: 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 there is no advantage in moving the member from the current 
acute care hospital to an LTACH. 
 
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. The patient 
is currently undergoing treatment at an acute care hospital (ACH). The enrollee was intubated/ventilated and 
subsequently received a tracheotomy. The enrollee has since been weaned from the ventilator 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. The 
enrollee can then be transferred/discharged to a lower level of care for any ongoing long term care needs. 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 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 can safely receive the services needed 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. 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 left arm fracture. 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.