Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that this is the best chance for the enrollee's 
recovery where they can receive the aggressive treatment and individualized care plan needed. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the guidelines for admission 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. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee does not require services at the LTACH that are not available at the acute 
care hospital where they are currently receiving care. The Plan 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 LTACH services.
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Rituxan. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Rituxan. You say that the enrollee has failed Aubagio, Tecfidera, and 
Tysabri. She had side effects from Ocrevus. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee as not 
tried the formulary alternatives. 
 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 Rituxan. Our physician reviewer found 
that the enrollee has multiple sclerosis. The requested medication is a new start. The Plan requires a trial of 
Ruxience, Truxima, and Riabni before they will approve the requested drug. The provided records do not 
indicate that the enrollee has tried and failed the Plan's preferred step one alternative. The record does not 
indicate that the enrollee has a contraindication to or would have an adverse effect from the Plan's preferred 
step one alternative. The elements of the coverage criteria are not satisfied. Therefore, 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 Rituxan have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Rituxan.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve treatment with Invokana tablet. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Invokana. 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 Invokana 
tablet.  
 Benefits for Invokana 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 pay for High intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) (55880) provided 
March 10, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the outpatient procedure. You say that you are attaching further documentation 
that you actually did pay for this procedure with your own money. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 
the enrollee did not meet the criteria for the procedure. 
 
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 pay for the outpatient procedure. Our reviewer says 
that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found per the reviewed literature, the most widespread use of HIFU, and initially the only 
indication for its use, has been in patients with localized prostate cancer who are not candidates for surgery 
because of age, general health status, a prohibiting comorbidity or a preference not to undergo radical 
prostatectomy. 
 HIFU treatment for localized prostate cancer can be considered as an alternative minimally-invasive 
therapeutic modality for patients who are not candidates for radical prostatectomy, especially in the cases at 
low or moderate risk. Patients with lower pre-HIFU PSA level and favorable pathologic Gleason score seem to 
present better oncological outcomes. Salvage HIFU is a curative treatment option for a local relapse after 
EBRT with acceptable morbidity, but careful patient selection is imperative depending upon the prognostic 
factors. In addition, the efficacy and safety of HIFU as primary therapy should be further evaluated in 
randomized controlled trials comparing it with other minimally invasive therapies and watchful waiting. Future 
advances in technology and safety will undoubtedly expand the HIFU role in this indication as more patient 
series are published with longer-term follow-up. In this case the enrollee was not a candidate for HIFU therapy. 
The review has determined that the items/services at issue in this case are 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 outpatient procedure have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pay for High intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) (55880) provided March 10, 2022.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Injectafer (J1439). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Injectafer. You say that this drug is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says this drug is not medically necessary. 
 
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 Injectafer. Our reviewer says that this 
drug is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the provided records do not indicate that the 
enrollee has tried and failed the plan's preferred step one alternative or that the enrollee has a contraindication 
to, or would have an adverse effect from the plan's preferred step one alternative. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Injectafer have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Injectafer (J1439).
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for lab services provided on August 1, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the lab services. You say that these services were medically necessary and 
should be covered. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you billed with an incorrect place of service on 
the claim. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that, for lab services, the POS code must reflect the 
location in which the sample was taken. POS code 81 is used to describe samples taken by the laboratory 
directly. 
 
 We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of the lab services have not been met. Specifically, this claim was billed with the laboratory POS 
code. The records do not support that the sample was taken in a laboratory setting. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pay for lab services provided on August 1, 2022.
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 you need to start rehab for your broken hip. You say 
that you are a kidney transplant patient and require timely medications. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says based on Medicare guidelines, the IRF services you are requesting do not meet the requirements for 
approval. 
 
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 are medically stable and there are no complex nursing or rehabilitation 
needs. While you may benefit from physical and occupational therapy, your rehab needs can be provided in a 
lower intensity and alternate 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 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: 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 for the enrollee to regain 
their strength. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's needs can be met 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 the enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies. 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 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 ear, nose, and throat (ENT) services to be provided by 
an out-of-network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve OON services. You say that the enrollees condition is complex. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the services are available with a network provider. 
 
Medicare rules say that plans can require enrollees to get care from network providers. The contract with the 
Plan says that the Plan has to pre-approve care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving 
emergencies, out of area urgent care and care that cannot be provided by network providers. 
 
The requested provider in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan has network providers 
available who can provide the services at issue in this appeal. We found no exception that would require the 
Plan to pre-approve these OON services. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve ear, 
nose, and throat (ENT) services to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Intracept procedure. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Intracept. You say that the Intracept procedure is medically necessary and 
supported by strong science. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says studies have not proven that this 
service is helpful for treatment of the enrollee's condition. 
 
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 Intracept. Our reviewer says that the 
requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found the Intracept procedure is experimental. More research is needed. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Intracept have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve the Intracept procedure.
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 additional rehabilitation and physical 
therapy to regain the use of your hands and get back on your feet. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 
the services you need can be provided safely in other settings, for example, in a skilled nursing facility or home 
with outpatient 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 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 or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. 
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. 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 acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the unlisted procedure, stomach, Apollo Overstitch 
(43999). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the Apollo Overstitch. You say that this is medically needed for your health. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this procedure is considered experimental and investigational as 
the safety and effectiveness of the procedure is unproven. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that items and services that are not medically 
necessary are not covered. The rules also say that experimental and investigational devices are not covered.  
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of the Apollo Overstitch have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-
approve the unlisted procedure, stomach, Apollo Overstitch (43999).
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that LTACH services are medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the admission to a 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 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 they are currently 
receiving care. 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 LTACH services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a skin sealant (A6250). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a skin sealant. You say that the requested item is a medical necessity for the 
enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested item is not a covered benefit. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that skin sealants or barriers (A6250) are examples of 
wound-care items which are non-covered under the surgical dressing benefit because they do not meet the 
statutory definition of a dressing. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of a 
skin sealant have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a skin sealant 
(A6250).
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve use of a ventilator. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve ventilator. You say that you are appealing this denial. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says a ventilator is not covered by Medicare for this purpose. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that ventilator products used to provide continuous or 
bilevel positive airway pressure (CPAP or BiPAP) therapy, regardless of the underlying medical condition, 
shall not be covered.  
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. A ventilator is not covered by Medicare for the requested purpose. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve use of a ventilator.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve foot orthotics. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve foot orthotics. You say that this is affecting your life. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says this item is not a covered benefit. 
 
Medicare rules state that supportive devices for the feet (such as orthotics) are only covered for patients with 
diabetic foot disease or for patients who wear a leg brace. The Plan follows these same rules.   
 
Records show that you do not suffer from diabetic foot disease, and you do not wear a leg brace. Although 
orthotics may be appropriate for you, neither Medicare nor the Plan provides coverage of orthotics for your 
condition. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve foot orthotics.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for validity testing billed with code 83789 for date(s) of service 
June 5, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for code 83789. You say that this service is medically necessary and should be paid. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says code 83789 is not separately payable. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers performing validity testing on urine 
specimens utilized for drug testing should not separately bill the validity testing. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of code 83789 have not been met. Specifically, we find that the testing described by code 83789 is not 
separately payable. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for validity testing billed with 
code 83789 for date(s) of service June 5, 2022.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve angioplasty services to be provided by an out-of-
network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve OON services. You say that a vascular surgeon is unable to perform the 
services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there are network providers available. 
 
Medicare rules say that plans can require enrollees to get care from network providers. The contract with the 
Plan says that the Plan has to pre-approve care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving 
emergencies, out of area urgent care and care that cannot be provided by network providers. 
 
The requested provider in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan has network providers 
available who can provide the services at issue in this appeal. We found no exception that would require the 
Plan to pre-approve these OON services. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve 
angioplasty services to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.