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. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the IRF care is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the IRF care is not medically necessary, and the enrollee's needs can be met in a 
lower level of care such as a long-term care facility. 
 
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 was admitted for pneumonia. The enrollee's medical problems are stable, 
and 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. While the medical record supports a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no 
documented need for intensive rehabilitation 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 IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the intracept procedure (64628). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the service. You say that the service is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the service is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that items and services that are not medically 
necessary are not covered.  
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the service. Our reviewer says that the 
requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found one double-blind randomized study has shown that improvement with the intracept procedure 
was not clinically significant when compared with a sham procedure. Additional studies suggest that the 
intracept procedure may be more effective for low back pain than conservative treatment. Limitations of the 
published medical literature include a limited number of studies, industry funding of the studies, and a high risk of bias from lack of controls. Additional study is needed to validate any benefit of the procedure, and to 
compare it to other interventions. Current medical literature indicates that the intracept procedure is 
investigational 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 service have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve the intracept procedure (64628).
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 your 
medical records do not support a LTACH admission. 
 
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 there is no documentation provided indicating medical necessity for admission to a 
LTACH, you are receiving appropriate care at the present acute care hospital. 
 
 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 Prolia (J0897). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Prolia. You say that you do not agree with the denial. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the requested drug is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that for Medicare to consider coverage and payment 
for any item or service, the information submitted by the supplier or provider must corroborate the 
documentation in the beneficiary's medical documentation and confirm that Medicare coverage criteria have 
been met. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that there is insufficient 
information in the record to determine if Medicare rules for coverage of Prolia have been met. Specifically, 
there were no medical records provided to support that the coverage criteria for the requested drug have been met. The file shows that the Plan made multiple attempts to request medical records and nothing was received. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Prolia (J0897).
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve Opdivo. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Opdivo. You say that the records provided support the need for the 
requested drug. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the use of the requested drug is not reasonable 
and necessary. The Plan says that the records do not support that the enrollee has a resectable disease. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare may pay for unlabeled uses for anti-cancer 
drugs if they are medically accepted as safe and effective or appropriate for the particular use.  
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve Opdivo. Our reviewer says that the 
criteria for coverage have been met. Our physician reviewer found the use of Opdivo in this instance is 
supported by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines Version 2.2023 Non-Small Cell 
Lung Cancer. The use of this drug is not listed as not indicated, not supported, or not recommended in any of 
the compendia. The documentation provided supports that the requested drug is safe and effective and 
otherwise reasonable and necessary for this enrollee. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Opdivo have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-approve 
Opdivo.  
 
If the Plan does not agree with our decision, they can ask us to open a case again. We only open a case again 
if we believe there was a mistake or if there is new information to review. The Plan has to show us the mistake 
and/or send us the new information. This does not happen often. If we decide to open the case again, we will 
send you a letter.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you have secondary cancer to the bone which causes 
fracture to the femur, and you need rehabilitation before you can start radiation. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says you do not meet the Medicare criteria for admission to an IRF. 
 
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 clinical documentation does not specify any active medical comorbidities or 
complex functional impairments thus the complexity of the enrollee's documented nursing, medical and 
rehabilitation needs would not be expected to require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary 
approach to rehabilitation care. Our reviewer found that IRF criteria not met. 
 
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 special supplemental benefits for the chronically ill 
(SSBCI). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SSBCI benefits. You say that you were looking for utilities flex card 
benefits. You also say that you do not use any durable medical equipment. The Plan denied your request. The 
Plan says the criteria for eligibility have not been met.  
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that, to qualify for SSBCI, an enrollee must have a 
documented chronic condition that is life threatening or significantly limits the health or function of the 
enrollee, has a high risk of hospitalization or adverse health outcomes, and requires intensive care coordination.  
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of SSBCI benefits have not been met. Specifically, we have confirmed that you do not have an 
eligible condition that meets all the required criteria. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-
approve special supplemental benefits for the chronically ill (SSBCI).
Appeal type: Other
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve epidural steroid injection (ESI) services. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve ESI services. You say that the records provided support the need for the 
requested ESI services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the records provided do not show that the 
criteria for coverage have been met. 
 
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 ESI services. Our reviewer says that the 
requested ESI services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found the enrollee has chronic low back pain. He has had physical therapy, chiropractic care, and non-
steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs.) His magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) shows multi-level disc 
disease. He had a prior ESI which gave him 40% pain relief. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of ESI services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve epidural steroid injection (ESI) services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a home ventilator (E0466). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a home ventilator. You say that the requested item is a medical necessity for 
the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request for a home ventilator is not medically 
necessary. 
 
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 requested item is not medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found 
that severe airway obstruction is confirmed on the enrollee's pulmonary function tests. However, there is no 
documentation of chronic carbon dioxide (CO2) retention with an arterial blood gas (ABG) done while stable. 
Medicare does not cover a home ventilator when used at settings that can be provided with BiPAP; average 
volume-assured pressure support (AVAPS) can be provided with certain BiPAP devices. 
 
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 (E0466).
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 your mother is in a nursing home, and 
the surgeon wants to put a wound vac on the sacra would, your mother needs immediate attention, by 
remaining in the nursing home which is a lower level of care there is a chance to become septic and die. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says your mother's records do not show you need continued treatments and 
care that can only be given in a hospital setting, medically necessary care may be provided safely in a lower 
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 there are no services available at the LTACH that your mother requires that are not 
available at the health care setting being offered by the health plan. 
 
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: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that the services are necessary for the enrollee to reach 
their maximum function. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's current needs can be met a 
lower level of care at this time. 
 
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 the 
requested SNF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the clinical documentation shows that enrollee had a clinical/functional status 
change, and thus did require assessment from skilled therapy/nursing; however, inpatient therapy goals have 
been met and no recommendation for frequency of ongoing skilled nursing is provided. The documentation 
does not show that enrollee requires continued daily skilled services on an inpatient basis in a skilled nursing 
facility. As such, continued SNF care 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 SNF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care.
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Vabysmo. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve Vabysmo. You say that you believe Vabysmo is appropriate and medically 
necessary for the enrollee, given the incomplete response to Eylea. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 
the enrollee does not meet the medical necessity criteria to approve this request for Vabysmo. 
 
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 Vabysmo. Our reviewer says that the 
enrollee does not meet the coverage criteria for Vabysmo. Our physician reviewer found the provided records 
do not indicate that the enrollee has tried and failed the Plan's preferred step one alternative. The record does 
not indicate that the enrollee has a contraindication to, or would have an adverse effect from the Plan's 
preferred step one alternative. Our reviewer found that the elements of the coverage criteria are not satisfied. 
Our physician reviewer also found that 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 Vabysmo have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Vabysmo.
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. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not 
meet the medical necessity criteria for an IRF. 
 
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. 
 
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: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis, and CT scan of the 
chest. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis, and CT scan of the chest. You say that 
you are trying to rule out the possibility of occult cancer as the cause of the enrollee's left leg deep vein 
thrombosis (DVT). 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 CT scans are covered only when they are 
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 CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis, and 
CT scan of the chest. Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee's surgeon suspects that this unprovoked 
DVT may be a sign of a newly acquired hypercoagulable state. However, there is currently insufficient 
evidence to draw definitive conclusions concerning the effectiveness of testing for undiagnosed cancer in 
people with a first episode of unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE) in reducing cancer, or VTE-related 
morbidity and mortality. The results could be consistent with either benefit or no benefit. We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis, and CT scan of the chest have not been 
met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis, and 
CT scan of the chest.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve SNF care. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that the enrollee needs rehab to help gain their strength 
back. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says a SNF admission is not medically necessary.  
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 the 
requested SNF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found that the enrollee does not have daily skilled nursing needs that require the specialized 
skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional nurse. 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 or skilled therapy on an inpatient basis in a SNF 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 SNF care.