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 IRF care is medically reasonable and necessary for 
the enrollee's condition. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says rules for IRF care have not been met. 
 
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 patient was admitted for respiratory failure and acute encephalopathy. Medical 
problems are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. The patient does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive 
rehabilitation therapy program. While the patient has a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is 
no documentation of a need for an intensive rehabilitation program. In conclusion, there is not a reasonable 
expectation that this patient will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation 
therapy program provided in an IRF. 
 
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: Drugs
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve infliximab (Remicade). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Remicade. You say that the enrollee has failed previous treatment. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says that the request exceeds the maximum allowed. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare may pay for unlabeled uses for FDA-
approved 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 Remicade. Our physician reviewer 
found that the enrollee was diagnosed with pan-colonic ulcerative colitis. He has tried and failed Entyvio and 
Stelara. He initially did well on infliximab. However, last month he lost response as evidenced by elevation in 
fecal calprotectin and active proctosigmoiditis per the sigmoidoscopy. Management of the enrollees disease 
activity required recent hospitalization. The request is for a dose optimization of infliximab to 10mg every 6 
weeks. Per Prescribing Information (PI), as applied to this circumstance, Remicade is indicated in those with 
Ulcerative Colitis (UC) reducing signs and symptoms, inducing and maintaining clinical remission and 
mucosal healing, and eliminating corticosteroid use in adult patients with moderately to severely active disease 
who have had an inadequate response to conventional therapy. The PI further notes that for UC, Remicade is 
dosed at 5 mg/kg at 0, 2 and 6 weeks, then every 8 weeks. In this case, given the rapidity with which infliximab 
response was lost and the severity of disease recurrence, the recommendation for infliximab 10mg every 6 
weeks is both medically reasonable and necessary based on the enrollees provided clinical scenario. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Remicade have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-
approve infliximab (Remicade).  
 
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: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Vimpat. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Vimpat. You say that this drug is necessary to treat the enrollee's epilepsy. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this drug is not covered under the enrollee's medical benefits. 
 
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 Vimpat.  
 
Benefits for Vimpat 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: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve treatment with Tramadol tablet. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Tramadol. You say that the requested drug is a medical necessity for the 
enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says rules for coverage for self-administered drugs have not 
been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare Part B generally does not pay for self-
administered drugs. The self-administered drug requested here is not among the types which are covered by 
Medicare Part B. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve treatment with Tramadol 
tablet.  
 Benefits for Tramadol may be available under Medicare Part D. Contact the Plan that administers Part D 
benefits for further information concerning any benefits and appeal rights.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a MyoPro brace (L8701). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a MyoPro brace. You say that the requested item is a medical necessity for 
the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says rules for coverage have not been met because the 
requested item is experimental/investigational. 
 
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 MyoPro brace. Our reviewer says that 
the requested item is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer 
found that the clinical documentation by the ordering physician does not support that the requested orthotic 
device is an accepted standard of medical practice that meets but does not exceed the enrollee's medical need 
and does not indicate that the device is at least as beneficial as existing and available medically appropriate 
alternatives. 
 
 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 MyoPro brace have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a MyoPro brace (L8701).
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of the sacroiliac (SI) 
joint. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve RFA of the SI joint. You say that this procedure is medically necessary for 
the enrollee's condition. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested procedure is 
experimental/investigational. 
 
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 RFA of the SI joint. Our reviewer says 
that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found this is considered experimental/investigational due the wide variation in efficacy 
reported in the literature. Therefore, the request is deemed not medically reasonable or 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 RFA of the SI joint have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of the sacroiliac (SI) joint.
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 did not provide an argument with your appeal 
request. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says care at a LTACH exceeds the enrollee's needs. 
 
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 following a fall down a flight of stairs and found to have 
sepsis.  The record indicates that the enrollee has had a complicated hospital course and although is improving, 
still requires acute care services. The enrollee continues to receive acute care services and these have not been 
denied.  The medical record does not indicate that the enrollee requires services that he is 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 long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the requested LTACH care is a medical 
necessity for the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says medical necessity 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 there is no documentation provided indicating medical necessity for admission to 
a LTACH. The enrollee is receiving appropriate care at the present acute care hospital. The enrollee does not 
require services at the LTACH that are not available at the acute care hospital where the enrollee is currently 
receiving care. There are no services available at the LTACH that the enrollee requires that are not available at 
the health care setting being offered by the 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: 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 IRF care is a medical necessity for the 
enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says medical necessity rules for IRF care have not been met. 
 
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 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 does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational 
therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While the enrollee has a need for physical and/or 
occupational therapy, there is no documentation of a need for an intensive rehabilitation program.  There is not 
a reasonable expectation that the 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 inpatient rehabilitation facility (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 IRF care is medically necessary for the enrollee's 
condition. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says skilled nursing facility (SNF) care is more reasonable at 
this time. 
 
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 were admitted for volume overload and hyperkalemia after missing 
hemodialysis sessions. Medical problems 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. While you have a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, 
there is no documentation of a need for an intensive rehabilitation program. 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 inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve continued skilled nursing facility (SNF) services after 
April 1, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve continued SNF services. You say that continued SNF care is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says continued SNF services are not medically necessary. 
You were admitted to acute care on March 2, 2022, with septic shock and were discharged to a SNF on March 9, 2022.  You completed 24 days of SNF care prior to transitioning to custodial care on April 2, 2022. You no 
longer meet SNF criteria. 
 
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 continued SNF services. Our reviewer 
says that daily skilled services are not necessary. Our physician reviewer found you have no skilled nursing or 
skilled therapy needs that must be provided on a daily basis in an inpatient 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 continued SNF services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve continued skilled nursing facility (SNF) services after April 1, 2022.
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 would 
have difficulty tolerating 3 hours of therapy a day. 
 
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 physician reviewer found 
that the enrollee was admitted to the acute care hospital for ankle and humerus fractures after a fall. She had 
surgical repair of the ankle fracture. Her medical problems are stable. There is not a reasonable expectation that 
she will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in 
an IRF. While she has a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documentation of a need for 
an intensive rehabilitation program. 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 pay for physician's services provided on October 4, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the physician's services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
provider has opted out of Medicare and is not a Medicare certified provider. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that no Medicare payment may be made to a beneficiary 
for items or services provided directly by a physician or practitioner who has opted out of the program except 
in cases involving emergencies or urgently needed care. 
 
The services at issue in this appeal were provided in a non-urgent, non-emergent situation by the provider who 
has opted out of the Medicare program. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for 
physician's services provided on October 4, 2021.
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 did not provide an argument with your appeal 
request. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet criteria for LTACH care and 
they can be managed at 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 is no documentation provided indicating medical necessity for LTACH 
services. The enrollee is receiving appropriate care at the present acute care hospital.The enrollee does not 
require services at the LTACH that are not available at the acute care hospital where he is currently receiving 
care. There are no services available at the LTACH that the enrollee requires that are not available at the health 
care setting being offered by the health plan. The requested LTACH services are not medically necessary, 
reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee and able to be furnished safely and effectively only on an inpatient basis. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of 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 inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you have had numerous falls. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says it is not clear whether you will be able to tolerate the intensive level of therapy. 
 
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 physician reviewer found 
that you have a past medical history of end stage renal disease, diabetes, and congestive heart failure. You are 
living at home with progressive weakness and trouble walking. Your medical problems are stable. You do not 
require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, in an 
intensive rehabilitation therapy program. 
 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.