Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for the supplies provided on August 29, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the supplies. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the tracking 
number shows that only a label was created. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare health plans must make reasonable and 
diligent efforts to gather and forward to the IRE information regarding its decision to deny coverage or 
payment. 
 
The Plan has not made reasonable and diligent efforts to gather and forward to us information regarding their 
decision to deny your request. The Plan argues that the tracking number does not show that the supplies were 
delivered. However, the records contain an itemized packing slip dated August 29, 2022, with the same 
tracking number as the delivery ticket dated August 31, 2022. As such, the records support that the items at 
issue in this case were delivered. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for the supplies provided on 
August 29, 2022.  
 
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 300 milligrams (mg) of Entyvio (J3380) every 6 weeks. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve 300mg of Entyvio every 6 weeks. You say that you are requesting approval 
for the enrollee to be covered for 300mg of Entyvio every 6 weeks. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says the information provided did not meet criteria sufficient for full approval for requested dosing regimen 
based on current guideline recommendation. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for a drug or biological only if it is safe 
and effective and otherwise reasonable and 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 300mg of Entyvio every 6 weeks. Our 
reviewer says that 300mg of Entyvio every 6 weeks is not medically reasonable and necessary for the enrollee. 
Our physician reviewer found the record indicates that the enrollee has a diagnosis of Crohns ileitis. The Food 
and Drug Administration has stated that the requested drug is indicated for the enrollee's condition. Our 
reviewer found that the requested drug at 8-week dosing intervals was efficacious. The record provided does 
not establish the medical necessity and reasonableness, as defined by Medicare rules, of the requested service 
as prescribed. Our physician reviewer also found that the elements of the coverage criteria are not satisfied, and 
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 300mg of Entyvio every 6 weeks have not been met. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pre-approve 300 milligrams (mg) of Entyvio (J3380) every 6 weeks.
Appeal type: Transportation
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for ambulance transportation services (A0426, A0425) provided on 
October 7, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for ambulance services. You say that this transport was provided as part of a transfer 
after the enrollee was discharged from one facility and before the enrollee was admitted to a different facility. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the payment for these services is included in the hospital 
payment. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare health plans must make reasonable and 
diligent efforts to gather and forward to the IRE information regarding its decision to deny coverage or 
payment. 
 
The Plan has not made reasonable and diligent efforts to gather and forward to us information regarding their 
decision to deny your request. Specifically, the Plan has provided no evidence to show that the enrollee 
maintained inpatient status at one facility at the time of transport. Without any evidence, we cannot verify that 
the payment for these services would be made to a facility rather than separately. The Plan's denial is not 
substantiated in this case. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for ambulance transportation services 
(A0426, A0425) provided on October 7, 2022.  
 
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 depo-testosterone. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve self-administered drug. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says this drug is not covered by Medicare 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 depo-testosterone.  
 
Benefits for self-administered 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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the CardioMEMS device. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the CardioMEMS device. You say that the CardioMEMS device is 
medically necessary for this patient due to his specific clinical need. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says the CardioMEMS device is considered experimental/investigational for the patient's condition and is 
therefore non-covered. 
 
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 CardioMEMS device. Our reviewer 
says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found The CardioMEMS device was approved by the Food and 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. 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. As a result, at this time the CardioMEMS system would not be 
considered medically appropriate and necessary in this patients 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 the CardioMEMS device have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve the CardioMEMS device.
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 enrollee will benefit from IRF care to optimize 
functioning prior to returning home. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says based on Medicare guidelines 
and the information we have about the enrollees condition; all the requirements are not 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 enrollees nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. Medical 
problems are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. 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 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 the enrollee currently meets full IRF criteria The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does 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 that the complexity of the enrollees nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. Medical 
problems are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. 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 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 long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that you disagree with the Plan's denial. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested admission 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 the enrollee has been in the inpatient hopsital setting to manage crash injuries from a 
fall and pneumonia. 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 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: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a VIA Disc allograft intervertebral disc augmentation. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a VIA Disc allograft intervertebral disc augmentation. You say that based 
on the enrollee's clinical condition and review of the supporting documentation, you are confident that the Plan 
will agree that the VIA Disc procedure is appropriately indicated for this enrollee. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the clinical value and effectiveness of the VIA Disc allograft intervertebral disc 
augmentation in the setting of degenerative disc disease and low back pain 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 a VIA Disc allograft intervertebral disc 
augmentation. 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 an experimental/investigational 
procedure. 
 
 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 VIA Disc allograft intervertebral disc augmentation have not been met. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a VIA Disc allograft intervertebral disc 
augmentation.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a regimen of mvasi (Q5107), paclitaxel (J9267), 
famotidine (J3490), cathflo (J2997), dephenhydramine (J1200), and prochlorperazine (J0780). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the drug regimen. You say that the requested regimen is medically 
necessary for the enrollee's condition. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this is an off-label use that 
is not medically accepted. 
 
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 the drug regimen. Our reviewer says 
that the requested drug regimen is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the Food and Drug 
Administration (FDA) has not stated that the requested drug regimen is indicated for the enrollee's condition. 
The Medicare approved cancer drug compendia do not contain a supportive citation for the use of the requested 
drug regimen in the enrollee's clinical situation. Therefore, the reviewer found that the requested regimen is 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 the drug regimen have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a regimen of mvasi (Q5107), paclitaxel (J9267), famotidine (J3490), cathflo (J2997), 
dephenhydramine (J1200), and prochlorperazine (J0780).
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 will help optimize the enrollee's mobility 
and level of independence. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the documentation does not support 
IRF intensity 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 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 enrollees nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. Medical 
problems are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. 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 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an Intracept intraosseous ablation of the basivertebral 
nerve. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the requested services. You say that the enrollee has failed conservative 
treatment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the evidence-based criteria. 
 
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 requested services. Our physician 
reviewer found that the Intracept procedure is experimental. More research is needed to show its efficacy. 
Therefore, the request is not considered 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 of the requested services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve an Intracept intraosseous ablation of the basivertebral nerve.
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 the 
enrollee does not meet all the requirements, 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 the enrollee requires that are not 
available at the health care setting being offered by the health plan and has approved ongoing care 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 long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
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. 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).