Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Monovisc (J7327) and administration (20610). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Monovisc. You say that the requested drug is medically necessary for the 
enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee has not tried and failed the preferred drugs, 
Orthovisc, Synvisc, or Synvisc One. 
 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 Monovisc. Our reviewer says that the 
step therapy criteria have not been met. Our physician reviewer found the provided documentation does not 
indicate that the enrollee has tried and failed the Plan's preferred drugs. The reviewer also found that there is no 
documentation provided indicating that the plans required drugs would likely be less effective and/or likely 
have adverse effects for the enrollee. Therefore, the reviewer found that the step therapy criteria have not been 
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 Monovisc have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Monovisc (J7327) and administration (20610).
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve continuation of SNF care from October 24, 2022, 
forward. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that the stay is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the stay is not medically necessary based on SNF criteria. 
 
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 the enrollee does not require skilled nursing or therapy services on a daily basis. This 
enrollee does not meet severity of illness or intensity of service criteria for 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 continuation of SNF care from October 24, 2022, forward.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Imfinzi. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Imfinzi. You say that the enrollee has life threatening issues and needs to 
restart chemotherapy as soon as possible. You say that this is a National Comprehensive Cancer Network 
(NCCN) use of Imfinzi for gallbladder cancer. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the clinical value 
and effectiveness of Imfinzi as a monotherapy and second line agent in the setting of metastatic gallbladder 
cancer have not been demonstrated in the peer-reviewed literature. 
 
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 Imfinzi. Our reviewer says that the 
criteria for coverage have not been met. Our physician reviewer found the requested use of Imfinzi with 
cisplatin and gemcitabine is not FDA-approved for the enrollee's diagnosis. The use of Imfinzi in the setting of 
this regimen is not supported by one of the major drug compendia or by clinical research that appears in a 
Medicare-approved medical journal.  
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Imfinzi have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pre-approve Imfinzi.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the CardioMEMS device (CPT code 33289). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the device. You say that the device is necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the clinical value and effectiveness of the CardioMEMs device 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 the device. Our reviewer says that the 
requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found 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 enrollees 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 device have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve the CardioMEMS device (CPT code 33289).
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the CardioMEMS device (CPT code 33289). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the device. You say that the service is necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the clinical value and effectiveness of the CardioMEMs device 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 the device. Our reviewer says that the 
requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found 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 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 device have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve the CardioMEMS device (CPT code 33289).
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve continued skilled nursing facility (SNF) care after 
October 30, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care after October 30, 2022. You say that the continued admission to a 
SNF is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the continued admission to a SNF 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 after October 30, 2022. Our 
reviewer says that the requested SNF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on 
Medicare guidelines. Our physician reviewer found continued daily skilled services are not required to 
establish a maintenance program or to prevent deterioration of your condition. Your care needs, as a practical 
matter, can be provided 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 SNF care after October 30, 2022, have not been met. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pre-approve continued skilled nursing facility (SNF) care after October 30, 2022.
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 LTACH services. You say that the enrollee is stable and suitable for transfer 
to an LTACH. You say that the enrollee cannot be adequately cared for in their current condition at a skilled 
nursing facility or any other lower level of care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the LTACH 
services you are requesting do not meet the requirements for approval. 
 
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: 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 has been ordered by her provider to have 
inpatient rehabilitation. You also say that it was denied by the enrollee's plan. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says the IRF admission 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 the provided documentation does not indicate that the enrollee has complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. The reviewer found that while the enrollee has a need for therapy, there is no 
documentation of a need for an intensive rehabilitation program. The reviewer also found that 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. Therefore, the reviewer found that the requested IRF 
admission 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 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 the new patient outpatient office visit (99204) to be 
provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the office visit. You say that the medical records provided support the 
necessity of the requested services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says enrollees must receive their 
medical services from an in-network provider with the exception being urgent or emergent services. Non-
emergent services with non-contracted providers require prior authorization before services being rendered. 
 
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 
the new patient outpatient office visit (99204) to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
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 meets LTACH admission 
criteria. The enrollee's medical needs warrant an LTACH level of care to achieve a safe and sustainable 
discharge. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the record shows that the guidelines for admission to an 
LTACH have not been met. 
 
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 appears to be more stable and improving and should only require short-
term additional acute care services that can safely be administered at the current facility. Transfer to the 
LTACH would not be clinically advantageous at this time and completion of treatment at the current facility is 
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 the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve LTACH 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 requested admission to an IRF is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested admission to an IRF does not meet 
criteria. 
 
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 was admitted for pneumonia. Medical problems are stable. There are no 
complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. The enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies, 
including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. 
While the medical record supports a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documented 
need for intensive rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different level of care. 
There is not a reasonable expectation that 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 requested admission to an IRF is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested admission to an IRF does not meet 
criteria. 
 
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 was admitted for surgical repair of a humerus fracture after a fall. 
Medical problems are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. The enrollee does not 
require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an 
intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While the medical record supports a need for physical and/or 
occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. Medically necessary 
care can be provided in a different level of care. There is not a reasonable expectation that 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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an implantable loop recorder. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve an implantable loop recorder. You say that the enrollee needs the requested 
procedure because of ventricular premature depolarization and shortness of breath. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the enrollee has not had syncope and does not meet the criteria for coverage of an 
implantable loop recorder. 
 
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 an implantable loop recorder. Our reviewer says that an implantable loop recorder is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this 
case. Our physician reviewer found while the enrollee has a history of episodic shortness of breath, there is no 
documentation provided to suggest a history of unexplained syncope or any other apparent indication for an 
implantable loop recorder. There is insufficient documentation to support the medical necessity for insertion of 
an implantable loop recorder in this enrollees 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 an implantable loop recorder have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve an implantable loop recorder.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Prolia (denosumab) injections. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the Prolia injections. You say that it is felt that this treatment is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there is no failure of a trial of a preferred drug. 
 
Medicare covers Part B medications when they are reasonable and necessary but allows health plans to 
implement step therapy criteria. The Plan's contract indicates that it has implemented such criteria for certain Part B medications. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the Prolia injections. Our reviewer says 
that the requested drug is not considered reasonable and necessary per step therapy criteria. Our physician 
reviewer found based on the medical records provided, there is an indication that the enrollee has tried 
alendronate in the past, but no details were provided describing side effects or any adverse reaction. Records do 
not indicate trial and failure of zoledronic acid. Based on the medical records provided and the Medicare-
approved major drug compendia, there is no indication that zoledronic acid would likely be less effective 
and/or likely have adverse effects for the enrollee. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the Prolia injections have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve Prolia (denosumab) injections.