Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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 would like reconsideration because the services 
are medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says a SNF admission 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 have no identifiable skilled nursing or skilled therapy service needs. You do 
not require skilled nursing or therapy services on a daily basis as an inpatient 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 LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the enrollee is stable to transfer to a 
LTACH for the continuation of care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request 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 the enrollee does not require services at the LTACH that are not available at the 
acute care hospital where they are currently receiving care. All medically necessary care is being provided 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a repeat epidural steroid injection (ESI). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve these services. You say that you disagree with the denial. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the services are not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that repeat ESI is covered when specific criteria are 
met. 
 
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 services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has chronic low back pain 
and neck pain after spinal surgeries. She had a caudal injection on September 7, 2022 that provided 70 percent 
pain relief that lasted one week. The records do not document 50 percent pain relief for three months after the 
prior injection; therefore, a repeat ESI is not reasonable or medically 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 these services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a repeat epidural steroid injection (ESI).
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) and supplies. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a CGM and supplies. You say that you disagree with the Plan's denial. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet criteria for the requested device. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that therapeutic CGMs are considered medically 
reasonable and necessary for enrollees with diabetes who use insulin with at least three daily administrations, 
require frequent self-adjustment of insulin dosage based on the blood glucose testing results and have had an 
in-person visit with their treating physician to assess adherence to their CGM regimen and diabetes treatment 
plan. 
 
 
 We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The documentation indicates that the enrollee does not require 
frequent self-adjustment of insulin dosage based on the blood glucose testing results. Based on this 
information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of a CGM and supplies have not been met. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) and 
supplies.
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 prefer to be admitted to an IRF because you 
were independent before your hospitalization, and you want to return to being independent. You say that you 
are eager to participate in the three hours of aggressive rehabilitation that an IRF will offer you. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the IRF admission you are requesting does 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 you do not require the intensity of services provided at an IRF.  Specifically, you are 
not shown to require, or to be able to tolerate, fifteen hours per week of rehabilitative services with regular 
physician evaluation. Your care needs can be met at a lower 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 IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a shower chair. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a shower chair. You say that this item is necessary for the enrollee's 
condition. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this item is not covered by Medicare or the Plan. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that shower chairs are not covered because they are 
not primarily medical in nature.  
 
While a shower chair may be appropriate in this case, neither the Plan nor Medicare offers coverage of this 
item. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a shower chair.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Feraheme. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Feraheme. You say that you disagree with the Plan's denial. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the requested drug does not meet step therapy criteria. 
 
 
 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 Feraheme. Our reviewer says that the 
documentation does not support that the requested drug meets step therapy criteria. Our physician reviewer 
found the enrollee has a diagnosis of iron deficiency anemia. The documentation does not support that the 
enrollee has tried and failed Ferrlecit, Infed, or Venofer. The documentation does not support that Ferrlecit, 
Infed, or Venofer would likely be less effective and/or likely have adverse effects for the enrollee. Therefore, 
the enrollee does not meet criteria for the requested drug. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Feraheme have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Feraheme.
Appeal type: Other
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve additional routine transportation. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve additional routine transportation. You say that additional trips are needed 
for your cancer treatments. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you have exhausted your routine 
transportation benefit. 
 
Medicare does not cover transport in a vehicle that is not an ambulance. However, the Plan offers a 
transportation benefit that exceeds Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plans coverage rules apply in this 
case. The Plan covers a maximum of 40 trips per year.  
 
We looked at your request, the records in the case file, and the rules. Based on this information, we decided that you have exhausted the Plan maximum benefit for coverage of routine transportation. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve additional routine transportation.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for inpatient hospital care provided on April 
14, 2022, to April 18, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for inpatient hospital care. You say that you are disputing the share 
cost. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this cost sharing was charged correctly. 
 
The rules say a plan must disclose to its enrollees in clear, accurate terms all cost sharing information (such as 
copayments, deductibles and coinsurance). Your contract with the Plan clearly says that you must pay $325 
copayment for days 1 to 5 for inpatient hospital care. This inpatient hospital stay lasted 4 days, resulting in a 
copayment amount of $1,300 ($325 per day for 4 days = $1,300). 
 
You have been asked to pay $325 copayment for days 1 to 5 for inpatient hospital care. This item/service falls 
within the inpatient hospital care benefit category. This means that you have been asked to pay the correct 
amount based on your contract with the Plan. This cost sharing is a contractual obligation you agreed to pay 
when you enrolled in the Plan. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for 
inpatient hospital care provided on April 14, 2022, to April 18, 2022.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve additional transportation trips. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve additional transportation trips. You say that the doctor submitted records for 
justification of additional trips for your dialysis, since you exhausted your trips. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says your policy covers 24 one-way trips. The Plan also says that you have exhausted the covered 
benefit of those 24 trips. 
 
Medicare does not cover transport in a vehicle that is not an ambulance. However, the Plan offers a 
transportation benefit that exceeds Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plans coverage rules apply in this 
case. The Plan covers a maximum of 24 trips per year.  
 We looked at your request, the records in the case file, and the rules. Based on this information, we decided 
that you have exhausted the Plan maximum benefit for coverage of routine transportation. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve additional transportation trips.
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 the requested CGM is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the criteria for coverage have not been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that therapeutic CGMs are considered medically 
reasonable and necessary for enrollees with diabetes who use insulin with at least three daily administrations, 
require frequent self-adjustment of insulin dosage based on the blood glucose testing results and have had an 
in-person visit with their treating physician to assess adherence to their CGM regimen and diabetes treatment 
plan. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The documentation indicates that the enrollee does not use insulin 
with at least three daily injections. 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: 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 it is not safe for you to return home in your current 
condition. 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 your 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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve cardiac catheterization to be provided by an out-of-
network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve cardiac catheterization. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says there are in-network providers that can provide this service. 
 
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 items/services at issue in this appeal. We found no exception that would require 
the Plan to pre-approve these items/services. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve 
cardiac catheterization to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Cala Trio nerve stimulation device. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve these services. You say that you disagree with the denial. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the services are not medically necessary. 
 
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 services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has bilateral intention 
tremors. There is insufficient evidence in the literature to support the use of this Cala Trio device for essential 
tremor. Also, the requested device is not the standard of care for essential tremor and not medically 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 these services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a Cala Trio nerve stimulation device.
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 LTACH care is medically necessary for 
the enrollee's condition. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's needs are being met in the 
current 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 that there is no documentation provided indicating medical necessity for admission to 
an LTACH. The enrollee is receiving appropriate care at the present acute care hospital. 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve placement of the Sprint percutaneous nerve stimulator 
(PNS). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the PNS placement. You say that this is a proven method for reducing 
chronic pain. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there is not sufficient evidence to support that this 
device is medically necessary for your 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 the PNS placement. Our reviewer says 
that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found there is limited published, large-scale, long-term peer-reviewed literature that shows 
this request to be an effective and/or safe treatment for the enrollee's condition. The current peer-reviewed 
literature indicates that further studies are needed to corroborate that this technology is as effective as standard 
treatments. There is no compelling rationale presented or extenuating circumstances noted to support the 
medical necessity of this request as an exception. Therefore, the requested SPRINT PNS placement, 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 the PNS placement have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve placement of the Sprint percutaneous nerve stimulator (PNS).
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 the procedure. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says medical studies have not proven that this procedure is helpful for treatment. 
 
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 procedure. Our reviewer says that 
the requested services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found that this 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 the procedure have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve the Intracept procedure.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a power wheelchair. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a power wheelchair. You say that you disagree with the Plan's denial. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet criteria for the requested power wheelchair. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that a PMD will not be covered if the patient does not 
have mobility deficit that impairs their participation in MRADLs, the patients condition can be ameliorated by 
a walker, cane or manual wheelchair, or the patient is not capable of safely operating the requested PMD.  
 
Review of the file shows that there is no documentation that the enrollee is unable to self-propel a manual 
wheelchair, or a notation that the enrollee has a physical ability to safely maneuver the power wheelchair. In 
addition, there was no home evaluation to confirm that the enrollee's home is accessible to the power 
wheelchair. This means that Medicare rules for coverage of a PMD have not been met. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a power wheelchair.