Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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 are appealing the denial of admission. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says based on Medicare guidelines the inpatient rehabilitation facility 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 the complexity of the enrollees nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care.  The enrollee was admitted for congestive heart failure. Medical problems are stable. There are no complex 
nursing or rehabilitation needs. While the medical records support 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 IRF admission and services.
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 the enrollee appears to be currently unstable requiring additional acute care 
services that can safely be provided at the current facility until more stable for transfer. The enrollee does not 
require services at the LTACH that are not already available at the current 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 LTACH services.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Bafiertam. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Bafiertam. You say that this is medically necessary for the enrollee's 
condition. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this drug is not covered under the enrollee's medical 
benefit. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare Part B generally does not pay for self-
administered drugs. The self-administered drugs requested here are not among the types which are covered by 
Medicare Part B. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Bafiertam.  
 
Benefits for Bafiertam 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: 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 with Parkinson's disease and Lewy Body 
dementia was exacerbated postoperatively with acute hallucinations and increased confusion. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says based on Medicare guidelines the inpatient rehabilitation facility 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 the complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The enrollee 
was admitted for surgical repair of a hip fracture after a fall. Medical problems are stable. There are no 
complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. While the medical records support 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 IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Ziextenzo. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Ziextenzo. You say that this drug is medically necessary for the enrollee's 
condition. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says step therapy criteria have not been met. 
 
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 Ziextenzo. Our reviewer says that the 
requested drug, Ziextenzo, is not medically reasonable and necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the 
Plan requires a trial of Fulphila, Neulasta or Udenyca before they will approve the requested drug. In this case, 
the record indicates that the enrollee has diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. The requested medication is a new 
start. 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 Plans preferred step one alternative. The elements of the coverage criteria are not satisfied.   
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Ziextenzo have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Ziextenzo.
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 the enrollee would benefit from skilled nursing 
services due to their medical complexity. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee can receive 
care at a different setting, for example, home with home health, in residential care, or home with close follow-
up with your doctor. 
 
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 daily skilled services are not necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the 
medical records do not document that you require services on an inpatient basis, only in a 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 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 acute IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the services requested are medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says 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 the enrollee does not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary 
approach to rehabilitation 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve premium intraocular lens implants. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the implants. You say that this was recommended for better vision after 
surgery. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this is not a covered benefit. 
 
The Plan covers all items that Medicare covers. Medicare rules say that if an enrollee receives a P-C IOL 
during cataract surgery, the enrollee will be responsible for the difference in cost between the P-C IOL and a 
conventional IOL.  
 
While a P-C IOL may be appropriate for you, neither the Plan nor Medicare covers the presbyopia-correcting 
feature of a P-C IOL. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve premium intraocular 
lens implants.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve repeat epidural steroid injection services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the services. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the records do not show documentation of at least 50% sustained improvement pain for 
at least 3 months duration before a second block. The Plan says that it has not been 3 months since the 
enrollee's last injection on October 6, 2022. 
 
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 services. Our reviewer says that the 
requested services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer 
found that the LCD criteria requires at least 50% of sustained improvement in pain relief and/or improvement 
in function measured from baseline using same scale for at least three months. This was not achieved and 
therefore, the request is deemed not medically reasonable and necessary.  
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve repeat epidural steroid injection 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 the services requested are medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the criteria for admission to a SNF have not been met. 
 
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 documented skilled nursing or skilled therapy needs. Daily 
skilled services are not shown to be required to establish a maintenance program or to prevent deterioration of 
your condition. Your care needs 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 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 acute IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee will benefit from a short term stay at an 
IRF to improve functional mobility, activities of daily living, and acute care hospital readmission. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says an IRF admission is not medically necessary, and enrollee can get the 
services they need provided safely in other settings. 
 
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 acute IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that you are appealing the denial of 
admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says based on Medicare guidelines the long term acute care 
hospital 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 is receiving appropriate care at the present setting. 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 the (LTACH services.
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 the record indicates that the enrollee has ongoing acute medical issues and still 
requires acute care services. The enrollee continues to receive acute care services, and these have not been 
denied. The medical record does not indicate that the enrollee requires services that he is not currently 
receiving but that would be available at the LTACH facility. The elements of the coverage rules are not 
satisfied.  
 
 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 IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee will benefit from acute rehab to optimize 
their level of functioning prior to transitioning to home independently as they were prior to their acute 
hospitalization. You say that enrollee has had serious life-threatening constellation of acute medical problems 
that have left them at a functional status below their baseline which requires them to have physical and 
occupational therapy. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an IRF admission is not medically 
necessary, and the enrollee can get the services they need provided safely in other settings. 
 
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 acute IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a portable oxygen concentrator (POC). 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve the concentrator. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says this is considered duplicative. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that to qualify for portable oxygen, the patient must meet 
the criteria for home oxygen. The documentation must show that the patient is mobile in the home and would 
benefit from the use of portable oxygen in the home. Portable oxygen is not covered for patients who qualify 
for oxygen solely based on blood gas studies obtained during sleep.   
 
To qualify for home oxygen, the patient must meet one of the following blood gas levels: 
 
1. Arterial PO2 at or below 55 mm Hg or arterial O2 saturation at or below 88% on room air, at rest; 
 
2. Arterial PO2 at or below 55 mm Hg or arterial O2 saturation at or below 88% on room air, taken during 
sleep for a patient who have hypoxia symptoms during sleep;  
 
3. Arterial PO2 at or below 55 mm Hg or arterial O2 saturation at or below 88%, taken during exercise for 
patients who have hypoxia symptoms during exercise; 
 
4. Arterial PO2 between 56 and 59 mmHg and arterial O2 saturation is 89% on room air if there is evidence of 
dependent edema, pulmonary hypertension, or erythrocythemia. 
 
For patients with arterial PO2 at or above 60 mm Hg or arterial O2 saturation at or above 90% on room air, 
there is a rebuttable presumption of non-coverage. 
 
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 concentrator. Our reviewer says that 
the requested concentrator is not medically reasonable or necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the 
patient has metastatic head and neck cancer and is on supplemental oxygen for reasons that are not clear in the 
record. The patient indicates a need for a POC for trips outside the home for medical care, because portable 
tanks do not last long enough. There is no indication of whether the patient is using an oxygen conserving 
device. There is no testing to document that SpO2 can be maintained more than 91% during activity using an 
oxygen conserving device, as required by Medicare for coverage of a POC. 
 
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 concentrator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a portable oxygen concentrator (POC).