Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Experimental/Investigational
Decision: Overturned Decision of Health Plan

Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary:  An enrollee has requested breast tomosynthesis for the evaluation of her medical condition. Findings:  Two physician reviewers found that the services at issue were likely to be more beneficial for evaluation of the patients medical condition than available standard modalities. The medical literature supports the services at issue in this clinical setting. The advantages of tomosynthesis relate to its ability to allow the differentiation of dense glandular tissue from the architectural distortion commonly associated with cancer. In this case, the architectural distortion secondary to prior lumpectomy sometimes makes the differentiation of post biopsy architectural distortion from cancer challenging. Tomosynthesis aids in this differentiation due to the tomographic quality of the technique. Therefore, the addition of breast tomosynthesis in this clinical setting was likely to be more beneficial for evaluation of this patient than any other technique. Final Result: Two reviewers determined that the services at issue were likely to be more beneficial for evaluation of the patients medical condition than any available standard therapy. Therefore, the Health Plans denial should be overturned.  Credentials/Qualifications:   All three reviewers are board certified in diagnostic radiology and are actively practicing. All three reviewers are experts in the treatment of the enrollees medical condition and knowledgeable about the proposed treatment through recent or current actual clinical experience treating those with the same or a similar medical condition.
Appeal type: Medical Necessity
Decision: Overturned Decision of Health Plan

Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary:  An enrollee has requested Harvoni for treatment of her hepatitis C virus. Findings:  The physician reviewer found that joint guidelines issued by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) indicate that all patients with chronic hepatitis C should be treated except those with limited life expectancy due to non-liver-related conditions. The guidelines recommend that treatment-naive genotype 1 patients should be treated with Harvoni for 12 weeks. These guideline recommendations are based on multiple randomized clinical trials, and the medication is U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved for all patients with chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 regardless of fibrosis stage. For these reasons, the requested treatment with Harvoni is supported as medically necessary for the treatment of this patients hepatitis C infection. Final Result: The reviewer determined that the requested medication is medically necessary for treatment of the patients medical condition. Therefore, the Health Plans denial should be overturned.  Credentials/Qualifications: The reviewer is board certified in internal medicine with sub-specialty certification in gastroenterology and is actively practicing. The reviewer is an expert in the treatment of the enrollees medical condition and knowledgeable about the proposed treatment through recent or current actual clinical experience treating those with the same or a similar medical condition.
Appeal type: Medical Necessity
Decision: Overturned Decision of Health Plan

Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary:   An enrollee has requested Sovaldi for treatment of his hepatitis C virus.   Findings:  The physician reviewer found that the proposed treatment with Sovaldi is medically necessary and is considered the standard of care for the treatment of the patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 2. Per the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases/Infectious Disease Society of America (AASLD/IDSA) guidelines, all patients with chronic active HCV are eligible for treatment and should be treated with U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved antiviral therapy regardless of fibrosis score. Successful hepatitis C treatment results in sustained virologic response (SVR), which is tantamount to virologic cure, and as such, is expected to benefit nearly all chronically infected persons. The evidence supports treatment in all HCV-infected persons, except those with limited life expectancy (less than 12 months) due to non-liver-related comorbid conditions. The goal of treatment of HCV-infected persons is to reduce mortality and liver-related adverse consequences, including end-stage liver disease and hepatocellular carcinoma, by the achievement of virologic cure. The proposed treatment with Sovaldi has been approved by the FDA based upon a large trial involving genotype 2 and 3 patients.   This regimen has also been endorsed by the AASLD/IDSA in their guidelines for the treatment of HCV patients. The initial phase three studies (FISSION, FUSION and POSITRON) demonstrated that the Sovaldi regimen was well-tolerated, safe and efficacious. As such, Sovaldi is medically necessary for treatment of the patients medical condition. Final Result: The reviewer determined that the requested medication is medically necessary for treatment of the patients medical condition. Therefore, the Health Plans denial should be overturned.  Credentials/Qualifications: The reviewer is board certified in internal medicine with sub-specialty certification in gastroenterology and is actively practicing. The reviewer is an expert in the treatment of the enrollees medical condition and knowledgeable about the proposed treatment through recent or current actual clinical experience treating those with the same or a similar medical condition.
Appeal type: Medical Necessity
Decision: Overturned Decision of Health Plan

Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary:  An enrollee has requested Sovaldi and ribavirin for treatment of her hepatitis C virus.  Findings:  The physician reviewer found that based upon the joint guidelines issued by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), all patients with chronic hepatitis C should be treated except those with limited life expectancy due to non-liver-related conditions. Per the guidelines, treatment-naive genotype 2 patients should be treated with Sovaldi and ribavirin for 12 weeks. These guideline recommendations are based on multiple randomized clinical trials, and the medication is U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved for all patients with chronic hepatitis C genotype 2 regardless of fibrosis stage. For these reasons, the requested treatment with Sovaldi and ribavirin is supported as medically necessary for treatment of this patients hepatitis C infection. Final Result: The reviewer determined that the requested medications are medically necessary for treatment of the patients medical condition. Therefore, the Health Plans denial should be overturned.  Credentials/Qualifications: The reviewer is board certified in internal medicine with sub-specialty certification in gastroenterology and is actively practicing. The reviewer is an expert in the treatment of the enrollees medical condition and knowledgeable about the proposed treatment through recent or current actual clinical experience treating those with the same or a similar medical condition.
Appeal type: Experimental/Investigational
Decision: Upheld Decision of Health Plan

Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary:  An enrollee has requested the LINX reflux management system for treatment of his medical condition.   Findings:  Two physician reviewers found that according to the study by researchers, Sphincter augmentation with the LINX Reflux Management System provided long-term clinical benefits as demonstrated by reduced esophageal acid exposure, improved GERD-related quality of life, and cessation of dependence on [proton pump inhibitors] PPIs, with minimal side effects. In this case, the patient has GERD and Barretts esophagus. However, there is a lack of studies in the medical literature demonstrating the safety and efficacy of the LINX procedure in patients with Barretts esophagus. Therefore, the LINX procedure is not likely to be more beneficial for treatment of the patients medical condition than any available standard therapy. Final Result: Two reviewers determined that the requested services are not likely to be more beneficial for treatment of the patients medical condition than any available standard therapy. Therefore, the Health Plans denial should be upheld.  Credentials/Qualifications:   All three reviewers are board certified in internal medicine with sub-specialty certification in gastroenterology and are actively practicing. All three reviewers are experts in the treatment of the enrollees medical condition and knowledgeable about the proposed treatment through recent or current actual clinical experience treating those with the same or a similar medical condition.
Appeal type: Urgent Care
Decision: Upheld Decision of Health Plan

Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: An enrollee requested air and ground ambulance transportation services on an emergent basis. Findings: The physician reviewer found that the medical records indicate that the patient had an open fracture of the arm with intact radial artery and a damaged ulnar nerve. The vascular status to the arm was documented to be intact. The wound was cleaned and splinted. In this scenario, a prudent layperson would reasonably believe that air transport to the closest facility capable of treating the patient was appropriate. Based upon the information provided, transport arranged through the health plan to a more local hospital was declined over transport to a facility involving significantly longer air travel.  As such, a prudent layperson would not reasonably believe that air and ground ambulance transportation services were required at the time they were provided.  Final Result: The reviewer determined that the services at issue did not meet prudent layperson criteria for emergency care. Therefore, the Health Plans denial should be upheld.Credentials/Qualifications: The reviewer is board certified in orthopedic surgery and is actively practicing. The reviewer is an expert in the treatment of the enrollees medical condition and knowledgeable about the proposed treatment through recent or current actual clinical experience treating those with the same or a similar medical condition.
Appeal type: Medical Necessity
Decision: Upheld Decision of Health Plan

Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary:  An enrollee has requested an increase in Percocet medication for treatment of her medical condition.   Findings:  The physician reviewer found that the submitted documentation fails to demonstrate the medical necessity of the requested medical quantity.  She has been on Percocet without documentation of improved function or attempted weaning.  The patient has non-malignant chronic pain, which will often worsen or recur as a result of opioid rebound.  The current standard of care for chronic pain is treatment in a multidisciplinary pain management practice to include physical therapy, massage therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, and injections to help reduce pain.  Researchers reported that high-dose opiates might contribute to pain sensitization via opioid-induced hyperalgesia, decreasing patient pain threshold and potentially masking resolution of a preexisting pain condition.  Other researchers reported that prolonged use of opiates might induce tolerance, abnormal pain sensitivity, and hormonal effects.  The aim of current guidelines is to protect patients from the adverse effects of opioid therapy.  All told, the requested increase in Percocet medication is not medically necessary for the treatment of this patient. Final Result: The reviewer determined that the requested medication quantity is not medically necessary for treatment of the patients medical condition. Therefore, the Health Plans denial should be upheld.  Credentials/Qualifications: The reviewer is board certified in anesthesiology with sub-specialty certification in pain medicine and is actively practicing. The reviewer is an expert in the treatment of the enrollees medical condition and knowledgeable about the proposed treatment through recent or current actual clinical experience treating those with the same or a similar medical condition.
Appeal type: Experimental/Investigational
Decision: Upheld Decision of Health Plan

Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary:  An enrollee has requested the LINX procedure for treatment of his medical condition.   Findings:  Three physician reviewers found that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the LINX Reflux Management System for lower esophageal sphincter augmentation.  Eligible patients for the procedure include those with inadequate symptom control with acid suppression therapy, including those patients with mild to moderate gastroesophageal reflux disease and a hiatal hernia less than 3 cm.  Results from early studies are encouraging.  However, at this time, the literature on this device is from uncontrolled observational data.  Per the medical evidence, the superior efficacy of the LINX procedure compared to the standard reflux operation, fundoplication, has not been established.  In sum, the requested LINX procedure is not likely to be more effective than other treatment options. Final Result: Three reviewers determined that the requested services are not likely to be more beneficial for treatment of the patients medical condition than any available standard therapy. Therefore, the Health Plans denial should be upheld.  Credentials/Qualifications:   All three reviewers are board certified in internal medicine with sub-specialty certification in gastroenterology and are actively practicing. All three reviewers are experts in the treatment of the enrollees medical condition and knowledgeable about the proposed treatment through recent or current actual clinical experience treating those with the same or a similar medical condition.
Appeal type: Medical Necessity
Decision: Overturned Decision of Health Plan

Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary:   An enrollee has requested Harvoni for treatment of his hepatitis C.  Findings:  The physician reviewer found that the submitted documentation supports the medical necessity of the requested medication.  According to the most recent joint guidelines issued by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the Infectious Diseases Society of America, all patients with chronic hepatitis C should be treated except those with limited life expectancy due to non-liver-related conditions. This applies regardless of fibrosis stage or viral load.  Patients with diabetes mellitus are at high risk for rapid progression of fibrosis. Per the guidelines, treatment-naive genotype 1 patients should be treated with Harvoni, and patients with a viral load of less than 6,000,000 IU/mL can be treated for eight weeks.  For these reasons, the requested treatment with Harvoni is medically indicated for the treatment of this patient.  Final Result: The reviewer determined that the requested medication is medically necessary for treatment of the patients medical condition. Therefore, the Health Plans denial should be overturned.  Credentials/Qualifications: The reviewer is board certified in internal medicine with sub-specialty certification in gastroenterology and is actively practicing. The reviewer is an expert in the treatment of the enrollees medical condition and knowledgeable about the proposed treatment through recent or current actual clinical experience treating those with the same or a similar medical condition.
Appeal type: Experimental/Investigational
Decision: Overturned Decision of Health Plan

Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: An enrollee has requested Afirma Gene Expression Classifier testing for evaluation of her medical condition.   Findings:  Three physician reviewers found that while a fine needle aspiration biopsy of a suspicious thyroid nodule is typically an accurate means of assessing whether the nodule is benign or malignant, approximately 15% of fine needle aspiration biopsy results are considered to be indeterminate.  Until recently, the only way to establish whether the nodule was thyroid cancer was via surgical excision, even though the majority of the cases turn out to be benign.  Afirma Gene Expression Classifier testing utilizes a gene expression classifier in order to help determine the likelihood of malignancy of nodules with indeterminate cytology on fine needle aspiration biopsy, thereby decreasing the need for unnecessary surgeries.  Because it is very sensitive and has a high negative predictive value, a negative Afirma result is rather suggestive of a benign nodule and can therefore preclude such surgical procedures.  All told, the services at issue were likely to have been of greater benefit than other modalities for evaluating this patient.   Final Result: Three reviewers determined that the services at issue were likely to be more beneficial for evaluation of the patients medical condition than any available standard therapy. Therefore, the Health Plans denial should be overturned.  Credentials/Qualifications:  All three reviewers are board certified in internal medicine with sub-specialty certification in endocrinology, diabetes and metabolism and are actively practicing. All three reviewers are experts in the treatment of the enrollees medical condition and knowledgeable about the proposed treatment through recent or current actual clinical experience treating those with the same or a similar medical condition.
Appeal type: Medical Necessity
Decision: Overturned Decision of Health Plan

Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary:  An enrollee has requested Harvoni for treatment of her medical condition.  Findings:  The physician reviewer found that according to the most recent joint guidelines issued by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), all patients with chronic hepatitis C should be treated except those with limited life expectancy due to non-liver-related conditions. This applies regardless of fibrosis stage or viral load. Per the AASLD/IDSA guidelines, Harvoni is first-line therapy for treatment-naive genotype 1 patients. These guideline recommendations are based on multiple randomized clinical trials, and the medication is U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved for all patients with chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 regardless of fibrosis stage. The guidelines also cite data showing increased survival with earlier treatment. For these reasons, the requested treatment with Harvoni is supported as medically necessary for the treatment of this patients hepatitis C infection.  Final Result: The reviewer determined that the requested medication is medically necessary for treatment of the patients medical condition. Therefore, the Health Plans denial should be overturned.  Credentials/Qualifications: The reviewer is board certified in internal medicine with sub-specialty certification in gastroenterology and is actively practicing. The reviewer is an expert in the treatment of the enrollees medical condition and knowledgeable about the proposed treatment through recent or current actual clinical experience treating those with the same or a similar medical condition.
Appeal type: Medical Necessity
Decision: Overturned Decision of Health Plan

Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: An enrollee has requested Sovaldi and Daklinza for treatment of his hepatitis C virus. Findings: The physician reviewer found that according to joint guidelines issued by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), all patients with chronic hepatitis C should be treated except those with life expectancy less than 12 months due to non-liver-related conditions. In treatment-naive genotype 3 patients, therapy is recommended with Sovaldi and Daklinza for 12 weeks regardless of interferon eligibility. This is based on the ALLY-3 study, which showed a cure rate of 97%. The guidelines cite study data reporting that delay in treatment may result in decreased survival. For these reasons, the requested treatment with Sovaldi and Daklinza is supported as medically necessary for the treatment of this patients hepatitis C infection. Final Result: The reviewer determined that the requested medications are medically necessary for treatment of the patients medical condition. Therefore, the Health Plans denial should be overturned.  Credentials/Qualifications: The reviewer is board certified in internal medicine with sub-specialty certification in gastroenterology and is actively practicing. The reviewer is an expert in the treatment of the enrollees medical condition and knowledgeable about the proposed treatment through recent or current actual clinical experience treating those with the same or a similar medical condition.
Appeal type: Medical Necessity
Decision: Overturned Decision of Health Plan

Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary:   The parent of an enrollee has requested residential treatment center (RTC) services for treatment of the patients behavioral health condition.  Findings:  The physician reviewer found that the RTC services were and are medically necessary for treatment of the patients medical condition. According to the American Psychiatric Association (APA) treatment guidelines for the treatment of patients with this diagnosis, the criteria regarding care at the RTC level is the motivation that the patient has to recover, including cooperativeness, insight and ability to control obsessive thoughts. Another important factor is the amount of structure that is needed for eating and gaining weight and preventing compulsive exercising. The APA guidelines also emphasizes that before a patient is discharged from inpatient level of care, the patient needs to learn to maintain a healthy weight prior to discharge. If the patient is discharged before this learning occurs, the patient is likely to immediately decrease their caloric intake to excessively low levels and lose weight. Of significant importance in determining readiness for discharge is the ability of family to continue her program as an outpatient. The documentation submitted for review indicates that the family is not yet ready to provide adequate structure at home. As such, this patient continues to meet criteria for RTC level of care. Considering the clinical documentation submitted and national guidelines, the RTC services were and are medically necessary for treatment of the patients behavioral health condition.  Final Result: The reviewer determined that the services at issue were and are medically necessary for treatment of the patients medical condition. Therefore, the Health Plans denial should be overturned.  Credentials/Qualifications: The reviewer is board certified in psychiatry with sub-specialty certification in child and adolescent psychiatry and is actively practicing. The reviewer is an expert in the treatment of the enrollees medical condition and knowledgeable about the proposed treatment through recent or current actual clinical experience treating those with the same or a similar medical condition.