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 you need inpatient rehabilitation services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the criteria for admission to an IRF are not met. Your ongoing skilled therapy and nursing needs can be provided in a lower 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 the complexity of your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not require
an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. While the documentation does support a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for an intensive, multi-disciplinary 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: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve mitral valve repair and hospital admission for the
enrollee.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve these services. You say that these services are medically necessary. The
Plan denied your request. The Plan says that records show the enrollee does not have severe mitral valve
stenosis nor severe mitral valve regurgitation.
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 these services. Our reviewer says that
the requested services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Mitral valve surgery
is recommended for symptomatic patients with chronic severe primary mitral valve regurgitation and a left
ventricle ejection fraction greater than 30%. The documentation in this case does not support that the enrollee
has severe mitral valve regurgitation or severe mitral stenosis at this time. Our physician reviewer found that
the enrollee's condition does not meet criteria for coverage of these 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 these services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not
have to pre-approve mitral valve repair and hospital admission for the enrollee
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Xifaxan for the enrollee.

You asked the Plan to pre-approve this drug. You say that this is medically necessary for the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that this is not covered under Part B.

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 Xifaxan for the enrollee.

Benefits for this drug 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 therapeutic continuous glucose monitor (CGM).  

You asked the Plan to pre-approve a therapeutic CGM. You say that this device is medically necessary for the enrollee's condition. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the criteria for coverage have not been satisfied.  

The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that therapeutic CGMs may be considered reasonable and necessary for enrollees with diabetes who meet the criteria referenced 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 a therapeutic CGM. Our reviewer says that the requested CGM is not medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare rules. Our physician reviewer found the record indicates that the enrollee has diabetes.  The record does not indicate that the enrollee is insulin treated with three or more daily injections of insulin or that the insulin does is frequently adjusted based upon the insulin reading. The elements of the coverage criteria are not satisfied. The requested service is not 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 therapeutic CGM have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a therapeutic continuous glucose monitor (CGM).
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve continued skilled nursing facility (SNF) services.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF services. You say that these services are medically necessary. The Plan
denied your request. The Plan says that your needs can be met in an alternate level of care.
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for care in a SNF when the four factors
listed in the Medicare rules section are met. Custodial care is not covered.
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve SNF services. Our reviewer says that
daily skilled services are not necessary. Our physician reviewer found that your condition does not meet
Medicare criteria for continued SNF 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 SNF services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not
have to pre-approve continued skilled nursing facility (SNF) services.
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Entyvio for the enrollee.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the drug. You say that without this medication, there may be a flare-up. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says a step therapy exception cannot be granted.
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 the drug. Our reviewer says that the requested drug is not medically reasonable or necessary. Our physician reviewer found the plan requires a trial of Stelara before they will approve the requested drug. In this case, the enrollee has not tried and failed the required drugs. There is no documentation provided indicating that the plan's required drugs would likely be less effective and/or likely have adverse effects for the 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 the drug have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Entyvio for the enrollee
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 for the enrollee.  You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that these services are medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the enrollee can safely receive the services she needs in other settings.  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. The complexity of the patient's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The patient was admitted for surgical repair of a hip fracture after a fall. The enrollee's 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. 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. Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee's condition does not meet Medicare criteria for IRF 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 for the enrollee.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve admission to an inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF).
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there is a recommendation for discharge to home with home health 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 the complexity of your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care.
You were admitted for altered mental status, seizure, respiratory failure, urinary tract infection, congestive heart failure and metabolic encephalopathy. 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 the medical record supports a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different level of care. There is not a reasonable expectation that you will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF. We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve admission to an inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF).
Appeal type: Outpatient Therapies
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an additional 7 physical therapy (PT) visits.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve an additional 7 PT visits. You say that the services are medically necessary.
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services at issue are not medically necessary.
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for medically necessary outpatient
therapy.
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 an additional 7 PT visits. Our reviewer
says that skilled services are not necessary to restore or maintain function or to prevent deterioration of the
enrollee's condition. Our physician reviewer found the records do not demonstrate that the unique skills of a
professional therapist are required to safely and effectively provide treatment, that the services can be safely
and effectively performed only by a therapist, or for physical therapy, by or under the supervision of a
therapist. The enrollee should be able to transition to an independent home program at this point. The requested
services are not part of a maintenance program, and the specialized skill, knowledge and judgment of a
qualified therapist is not required to establish, design and/or deliver a program to maintain the enrollee's current
condition or to prevent or slow further deterioration.
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that
Medicare rules for coverage of an additional 7 PT visits have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan
does not have to pre-approve an additional 7 physical therapy (PT) visits
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the CardioMEMS system for the enrollee.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve these services. You say that these services are medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the clinical value and effectiveness of the CardioMEMs device in the setting of clinically stable, non-NYHA Class III, Congestive Heart Failure has not been demonstrated in the peer-reviewed literature.
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 these services. Our reviewer says that the requested services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. The CardioMEMS device was approved by the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) in 2014 and consists of a sensor device placed in the pulmonary artery to allow measurement of pulmonary artery pressure in the management of patients with congestive heart failure (CHF). The clinical study on which FDA approval was based showed improved clinical outcomes and decreased hospitalizations in patients in whom the CardioMEMS system was implanted, reflecting a patient population with preserved ejection fraction and was somewhat limited in scope.
Subsequent follow-up studies remain encouraging and suggest an improvement in heart failure symptoms with the use of the device. In addition, published expert opinion in the cardiology literature is supportive of the clinical usefulness of CardioMEMS. Nonetheless, there remains a dearth of randomized, blinded clinical studies examining long-term clinical outcomes establishing the value of CardioMEMS in patient management. Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee's condition does not meet criteria for coverage of these 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 these services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the CardioMEMS system for the enrollee.
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 these services are medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that your ongoing skilled therapy and nursing needs can be provided at a lower 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. The complexity of your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not require an acute hospital inpatient stay
with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. You were admitted for abdominal pain and had two exploratory laparotomies to manage small bowel ischemia due to obstructing band. Your 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. Our physician reviewer found that your condition does not meet Medicare criteria for IRF 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a portable whirlpool jacuzzi.

You asked the Plan to pre-approve a portable whirlpool jacuzzi. You say that you have unbearable pain and need this. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that your request is not a covered benefit because a mobile jacuzzi is not primarily and customarily used to serve a medical purpose and is generally useful to a person in the absence of illness or injury.

The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that for equipment to be covered, it must primarily serve a medical purpose.

The item at issue in this appeal does not serve a purpose that is primarily medical in nature. This item is available to the general public and would be helpful even to those who are not sick or injured. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a portable whirlpool jacuzzi.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services for the enrollee.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that these services are medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the member is receiving appropriate in-patient acute care and is currently unstable for transfer to an LTACH.
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. 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. Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee's condition does not meet Medicare criteria for LTACH 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 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 for the enrollee.
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 admission to an LTACH is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the admission to an LTACH 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 there is no documentation provided necessitating admission to a LTACH. You are receiving appropriate care at the present acute care hospital. You do not require services at the LTACH that are not available at the present setting where you are currently receiving care. There are no services available at the LTACH that you require 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.