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 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 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 mitral valve surgery. 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: 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 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 bilateral lower extremity cellulitis. 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 pay for the home visit provided by an out-of-network provider on January 19, 2021.
You asked the Plan to pay for the home visit. You say that the facility doesn't obtain authorization and the providers are not able to obtain one themselves. You say that you provided a service to the patient and should be paid The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this provider is not a network provider with the Plan and the services were not approved in advance.
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 provided by an out-of-network provider on January 19, 2021.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that an IRF admission is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you do not meet criteria for coverage of an IRF admission.
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that an 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 that the complexity of your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care.
Your medical conditions are stable. You do not have 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. Additionally, there is not a reasonable expectation that you will be able to fully participate in and benefit from an 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 an 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 long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that you need LTACH care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says rules for LTACH care have not been 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 that you have a history of recurrent mouth and throat and cancer and were admitted to the acute care hospital on May 26, 2021, with respiratory failure requiring intubation. The documentation does not support that you require services at the LTACH that are not available at the acute care hospital where you are currently receiving care. In addition, the documentation does not support that an additional 25 days of hospitalization are reasonably expected for the enrollee in this case. Consequently, 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.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Nucala.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve these services. You say that you disagree with the denial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services are not medically necessary.
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for a drug or biological only if it is safe and effective and otherwise reasonable and 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 these services. Our reviewer says that the services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has severe persistent eosinophilic asthma that was inadequately controlled on maximum inhaler therapy. He was apparently started on Nucala prior to September 9, 2020 and a good response was documented on that date. At that time, continued use of the other inhalers was documented. The the precertification form for continuation of Nucala indicates the inhalers will be discontinued. This is inappropriate; as Nucala is not intended as monotherapy for asthma. Also, a more recent clinical encounter is needed to assess the enrollee's current usage of medications and clinical response. The submitted records do not support that Nucala is safe and effective and reasonable and medically necessary 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 these services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Nucala.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for sneakers and a Chirp Wheel provided November 27, 2020.
You asked the Plan to pay for the sneakers and Chirp Wheel. You say that these items should be covered under the temporary benefit. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the Chirp Wheel and sneakers are not fitness equipment and are not eligible for coverage.
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that for equipment to be covered, it must primarily serve a medical purpose. Since these items are not eligible for coverage under Medicare, the plan's coverage rules apply. The supplemental temporary fitness equipment benefit allowed the enrollee to use their $300 health club allowance towards the purchase of home fitness equipment such as exercise bikes, yoga mats, and weights. All Items were subject to plan approval. All fitness equipment purchased under this benefit was subject to approval from the plan. The plan did not approve the sneakers and chirp wheel as fitness equipment. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for sneakers and a Chirp Wheel provided November 27, 2020.
Appeal type: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the taxi ride received January 13, 2021.
You asked the Plan to pay for the taxi ride. You say that you thought you had 24 rides available. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says your transportation services benefit is limited to Lyft.
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 routine transportation when rendered by Lyft. We looked at your request, the records in the case file, and the rules. Based on this information, we decided that the Plan's rules for coverage of routine transportation have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the taxi ride received January 13, 2021.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve inpatient skilled nursing facility (SNF) care.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that inpatient skilled nursing facility care is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you do not meet criteria for coverage of inpatient skilled nursing facility care.
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 inpatient skilled nursing facility care is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that you do not require skilled nursing services with the specialized skill, knowledge and judgment of a skilled professional nurse to safely and effectively provide medically necessary and reasonable treatment in a SNF. The documentation does not reveal evidence of complex wound care, new enteral feedings, or other skilled nursing need. Your functional level does not require skilled therapy services with the specialized skill, knowledge and judgment of a qualified therapist to safely and effectively provide medically necessary and reasonable treatment. You do not require skilled nursing or skilled therapy services (or a combination of these services) on a daily basis in a SNF. As a practical matter, you do not require the necessary services on 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 SNF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve inpatient skilled nursing facility (SNF) care.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a consultation with a dentist or physician other than the requesting dentist or physician (D9310) provided on November 2, 2020.
You asked the Plan to pay for the consultation with a different dental provider. You say that you already paid $75 for this visit and the dentist only referred you to another provider for expensive treatment. You do not know why insurance will not cover this service and feel that the dentist did not do anything. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this consultation is not covered under your dental 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 pay for a consultation with a dentist or physician other than the requesting dentist or physician (D9310) provided on November 2, 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. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there have not been many failed attempts to see if the enrollee is able to breath well without the help from the ventilator machine.
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 the enrollee was admitted to the acute care hospital with acute encephalopathy. There has been some improvement in the enrollee's mental status. She remained intubated, primarily for airway protection. A tracheostomy and a gastrostomy tube have been placed. She has anemia of undetermined etiology. 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 she 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.
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 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 kyphoplasty for a vertebral compression fracture. 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: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the ambulance services provided on November 14, 2020.
You asked the Plan to pay for the ambulance services. You say that you preferred to transport yourself due to the Covid executive order in place. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says these services are not a covered benefit.
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare does not pay for ambulance services when there is no transport. The ambulance company did not provide transport services on November 14, 2020. The ambulance benefit is a transportation benefit. When there is no transport, neither Medicare nor the Plan pays for the services provided. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the ambulance services provided on November 14, 2020.
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Xgeva.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Xgeva. You say that the requested drug is medically necessary. The Plan
denied your request. The Plan says step therapy criteria have not been met.
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 Xgeva. Our reviewer says that step
therapy criteria have not been met for this drug. Our physician reviewer found that the patient is a 70-year-old
female with metastatic breast cancer. In this case, the records provided did not show evidence of the patient
having tried and failed either zoledronic acid or pamidronate, the Plan's required step therapy drugs.
In addition, there was no indication from the provided documentation that the patient would likely have an
increased risk of adverse event or have less effectiveness if trying either zoledronic acid or pamidronate which
are similarly safe and effective for the patient's condition.
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that
Medicare rules for coverage of Xgeva have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to
pre-approve Xgeva.
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 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 proctitis, pancreatitis and newly diagnosed Parkinson's disease. 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.