Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Barostim NEO device (0266T, C1825). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the Barostim NEO device. You say that the enrollee's heart failure is 
progressively worsening, and he qualifies for the Barostim NEO device to improve symptoms, functional 
capacity and quality of life since he remains symptomatic despite being on maximal tolerated dose of medical 
therapy. The risk of not moving forward with implantation includes further deterioration, re-hospitalization, 
and potential heart failure mortality. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet 
FDA criteria for the Barostim NEO device due to CRT candidacy. 
 
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 Barostim NEO device. Our 
reviewer says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this 
case. Our physician reviewer found the Baroreflex stimulation devices have been considered potential 
alternative treatments for resistant hypertension and heart failure. The Barostim Neo system is an electronic 
pulse generator implanted underneath the clavicle with a lead tunneled under the skin to the carotid sinus in the 
neck. The pulse generator delivers electrical impulses, analogous to a cardiac pacemaker, to the baroreceptors 
of one of the carotid arteries. In August 2019, the FDA approved the system for use in enrollees with refractory 
heart failure who remain symptomatic despite treatment with guideline-directed medical therapy, are NYHA 
Class III, have an ejection fraction less than 35%, and are not candidates for bi-ventricular pacing. This was 
based on a clinical study demonstrating improvement in normal daily activities, distance walked, quality of life, 
and improved cardiac levels biomarker levels. There remains an absence of randomized, blinded clinical 
studies examining long-term clinical outcomes establishing the value of Barostim Neo in enrollee management. 
As a result, at this time the Barostim Neo system would not be considered medically reasonable and necessary 
in this enrollee's 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 Barostim NEO device have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve the Barostim NEO device (0266T, C1825).
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 device is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the request for a home mechanical ventilator set in iVAPS mode with Auto-
EPAP (AE) that could be delivered by BiPAPis not covered. 
 
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 service is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has a diagnosis of 
chronic respiratory failure consequent to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Provided records document 
that the home ventilator is being requested for use in intelligent volume assured pressure support (IVAPS) 
mode with auto-titration (AE) which could be provided by a BiPAP device with average volume assured 
pressure support (AVAPS) and a back-up rate. As stated in the Local Coverage Determination (L33800): 
"Claims for ventilators used to provide CPAP or bi-level CPAP therapy for conditions described in this RAD 
policy will be denied as not 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 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 acute IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that admission to IRF is medically necessary for the 
enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services the enrollee needs can be provided safely in 
other settings, for example, in a skilled nursing facility, or home with home health services. 
 
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 there are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. While the enrollee has need for 
physical 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 IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has 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 meets guidelines for IRF care. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says that the enrollee appears more appropriate for a skilled nursing facility 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 found to be medically reasonable and necessary for this enrollee. Our physician reviewer 
found that the clinical documentation shows that the enrollee has complex functional impairments and active 
medical comorbidities thus would be expected to require continued inpatient hospitalization with a focus on an 
interdisciplinary team management of rehabilitation. The evaluating physical therapist, occupational therapist 
and speech language pathologist recommend continued skilled therapy in an inpatient rehab setting. Thus, IRF 
criteria are 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 been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-approve 
acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.  
 
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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (77370, 77373, 
77470). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy. You say that this service was 
medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says coverage criteria has not been met. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy is indicated for 
patients with clinically localized, low-to-intermediate-risk prostate cancer. 
 
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 Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy. 
Our reviewer says that this service is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found for high-risk 
disease this type of Radiation Therapy is still controversial. Medicare rules only cover this service for low-to-
intermediate-risk prostate cancer. The enrollee's prostate cancer is considered high-risk. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy have not been met. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (77370, 77373, 77470).
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee is in need of physician oversight and 
continued monitoring in an IRF. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request is not medically 
necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
 
  We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found that the enrollees medical problems are stable and there are no complex nursing or 
rehabilitation needs. While the medical record supports a need for physical or occupational therapy, there is no 
documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different 
level of care. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the records indicate 
with a few additional days at the short-term acute hospital that the enrollee would be appropriate for discharge 
for 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 rehabilitation process for pelvis fracture is not complicated and the enrollee does 
not require frequent physiatry oversight or rehabilitation nursing.  
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. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says criteria 
for admission to the LTACH have not been met, the enrollee's medical needs are being met in the current acute 
setting. 
 
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 record indicates that the enrollee has ongoing acute medical issues and still 
requires acute care services and continues to receive acute care services and these have not been denied. 
 
 
 
  
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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Vertiflex device. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a Vertiflex device. You say that the services are necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says medical necessity has not been established. Therefore, coverage criteria have not 
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 a Vertiflex device. Our reviewer says 
that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found there is no compelling rationale presented or extenuating circumstances noted to 
support the medical necessity of this request as an exception. Therefore, the requested Vertiflex Superion 
interspinous spacer at L3/4, in this case, 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 a Vertiflex device have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a Vertiflex 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 services are necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says based on the documentation provided, coverage criteria has not been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. 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 you are functioning well after your second amputation. You do not require intensive 
or complex rehabilitation. You are near your baseline function.  
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. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you do not require 
around the clock access to a rehabilitation nurse or doctor, your needs can be safely met 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. Our 
physician reviewer found documents do not support necessity for admission to an IRF and the complexity of your nursing, and medical needs (no complexity) does not require an acute hospital inpatient rehabilitation stay 
with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitative 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: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that admission to IRF is medically necessary for the 
enrollee. 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 there are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. While the enrollee has a need 
for physical 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 IRF admission and services.
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 you are appealing the denial. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the request 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 you do not have skilled nursing needs that require the specialized skill, 
knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional nurse. You do not have skilled therapy needs that require the 
specialized skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional therapist. You do not require daily skilled 
nursing and/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.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the enrollee clearly exceeds the criteria 
for the LTACH. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the LTACH is not medically necessary, and the 
enrollee's needs can be met at a lower level of care such as a skilled nursing facility 
 
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 documentation does not support that the enrollee has need for complex medical 
treatment in a LTACH (e.g., multiple and prolonged intravenous therapies, monitoring of significantly 
medically active conditions requiring clinical assessment 6 or more times a day, multiple and frequent 
intervention of at least six or more times a day, like ventilator management, cardiac monitoring, complex 
wound care for multiple wounds stages three and above, the need for specialized high-tech equipment like 
cardiac monitors, on-site dialysis, or surgical suites). The enrollee does not require services at the LTACH that 
are not available at the acute care hospital or the skilled nursing 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.