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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the enrollee requires a higher level of 
care than a skilled nursing facility. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request is not medically 
necessary. 
 
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 the enrollee does not require services at the LTACH that are not available at the 
acute care hospital where they are currently receiving care. All medically necessary care is being provided in 
the current acute care 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 the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve LTACH services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a pain management office visit (99203) to be provided 
by an out-of-network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the office visit. You say that this service is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says there are network providers available. 
 
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 services at issue in this appeal. We found no exception that would require the 
Plan to pre-approve these services.  
 
 
 
 Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a pain management office visit (99203) to be 
provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
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 would like to request reconsideration of the 
denied claim. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) services 
you are requesting do not meet the requirements for approval. 
 
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 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. 
 
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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Repatha Sure injections. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Repatha Sure injections. You say that you would like the Plan to reconsider 
their denial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says Repatha Sure injections are 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 Repatha Sure injections.  
 
Benefits for Repatha Sure injections 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. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the enrollee meets the LTACH criteria 
and the LTACH is the best option for care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the LTACH services 
are not medically necessary, and the enrollee's needs are being met at the current level of care. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that LTACH services are covered if they are medically 
necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the LTACH services. Our reviewer says 
that the requested LTACH care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee was admitted with acute proctocolitis and has had a complicated hospital 
course. The record indicates that the enrollee is improving but still requires acute care services before 
transitioning to a lower level of care. The medical record does not indicate that the enrollee requires services 
that they are not currently receiving but that would be available at the LTACH facility. 
 
 
 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 IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that without IRF services the enrollee will decline in 
function. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request 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 that the enrollees medical problems are stable and there are no complex nursing or 
rehabilitation needs. While the medical record supports a need for physical or occupational therapy, there is no 
documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different 
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 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 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 enrollee is near her functional baseline and does not require intensive 
rehabilitation or frequent physiatry oversight. 
 
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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a home ventilator. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a home ventilator. You say that the requested home ventilator is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet criteria for a home 
ventilator. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that ventilators may be covered when they are medically 
necessary for patients who have neuromuscular disease, thoracic restrictive diseases, and chronic respiratory 
failure due to COPD. 
 
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 home ventilator. Our reviewer says 
that the enrollee does not meet criteria for a home ventilator. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has 
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and obstructive sleep apnea. There is no arterial blood gas 
testing done while stable showing chronic CO2 retention. If this enrollee has chronic CO2 retention, they may 
benefit from BiPAP with AVAPS during sleep. This has not been tried and shown to fail as an outpatient. Medicare does not cover a home ventilator when used at settings that can be provided with BiPAP. 
 
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 home ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a home ventilator.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a cardiac pacemaker. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a cardiac pacemaker. You say that the requested cardiac pacemaker is 
medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet criteria for a 
cardiac pacemaker. 
 
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 cardiac pacemaker. Our reviewer says 
that the enrollee does not meet criteria for a cardiac pacemaker. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has 
no history of symptomatic bradycardia. As such, the evidence provided would not meet criteria for pacemaker 
implant. In summary, there is insufficient documentation to support the medical necessity for the requested 
cardiac pacemaker in this enrollees clinical management. 
 
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 cardiac pacemaker have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve a cardiac pacemaker.
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 are requesting reconsideration for the denial of 
an IRF stay. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the criteria for an IRF 
admission. 
 
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 do not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. While the 
medical record supports a need for physical or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive 
rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different 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 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 are qualified for an IRF admission. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says an IRF admission is not medically necessary, and your needs can be met at 
an alternate 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 that you do not have any complex functional deficits or active medical issues. Your 
needs do not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation 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 IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Partially Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve procedure codes 22610 and 76000. We decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve procedure codes 22802, 62322, 63046, and 74450.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve back surgery.. You say that you cannot walk. The Plan says that the 
requested services are not needed to complete the desired surgical repairs. 
 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve procedure codes 22610 and 76000.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that services will be covered when it is medically 
necessary. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve procedure codes 22610 and 76000. Our 
physician reviewer found that the enrollee had previous back fusion to L3 and now has a compression 
deformity of L3. All that is needed is extension of the fusion and instrumentation to the T10 level. Therefore, a 
thoracic fusion to T10 (code 22610) and an intraoperative fluoroscopy (code 76000) are medically reasonable 
and necessary.  We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-approve procedure 
codes 22610 and 76000.  
 
We also decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve procedure codes 22802, 62322, 63046, and 
74450. 
 
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 procedure codes 22802, 62322, 63046, 
and 74450. Our physician reviewer found that there is no medical need for a 7-12 segment long fusion, lumbar 
epidural injection, thoracic laminectomy, or urethrocystography.  There is no thoracic stenosis. Therefore, the 
requested 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 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-
approve procedure codes 22802, 62322, 63046, and 74450. 
 
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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a home ventilator. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a home ventilator. You say that the requested home ventilator is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet criteria for a home 
ventilator. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that ventilators may be covered when they are medically 
necessary for patients who have neuromuscular disease, thoracic restrictive diseases, and chronic respiratory 
failure due to COPD. 
 
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 home ventilator. Our reviewer says 
that the enrollee does not meet criteria for a home ventilator. Our physician reviewer found the record indicates 
that the enrollee has chronic respiratory failure status post orthotopic lung transplant in 2017. The provided 
primary source documentation does not contain sufficient detailed information in the medical record to justify 
the treatment selected. The enrollee could be treated with a BiPAP machine with VAPS capability. The plan has indicated coverage for such a device is available upon request. The elements of the coverage criteria are not 
satisfied. The requested service cannot be recommended. 
 
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 home ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a home ventilator.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve bone marrow aspirate. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve bone marrow aspirate. You say that you disagree with the Plan's denial. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested services are not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that items and services that are not medically 
necessary are not covered.  
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve bone marrow aspirate. Our reviewer 
says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee was being treated for spinal stenosis of the lumbar region with 
neurogenic claudication. The enrollee presented with persistent back pain. The pain is rated at nine out of 10, 
constant, sharp, stabbing, aching, burning, and numbness. The exam reveals moderate tenderness of the lumbar 
spinous processes. Range of motion is decreased. Strength and sensation are intact. However, there is no specific indication provided to support the request for bone marrow aspirate for the approved surgery. There is 
a lack of large-volume, long-term peer-reviewed outcome studies to support the use of bone marrow aspirate 
for this enrollees medical condition as discussed above. There is no compelling rationale presented or 
extenuating circumstances noted to support the medical necessity of this request as an exception. Therefore, the 
enrollee does not meet criteria for the requested services. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of bone marrow aspirate have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve bone marrow aspirate.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a continuous glucose monitor (CGM). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a CGM. You say that the services are necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says based on the documentation provided, coverage criteria has not been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that therapeutic CGMs are considered medically 
reasonable and necessary for enrollees with diabetes who use insulin with at least three daily administrations, 
require frequent self-adjustment of insulin dosage based on the blood glucose testing results and have had an 
in-person visit with their treating physician to assess adherence to their CGM regimen and diabetes treatment 
plan. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The documentation indicates that the enrollee does not use insulin 
with at least three daily injections. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of a CGM have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a continuous 
glucose monitor (CGM).