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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the enrollee will require close 
monitoring and vent management. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's needs are being 
met at the current acute setting. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that LTACH services are covered if they are medically 
necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the LTACH services. Our physician 
reviewer found that the enrollee is currently undergoing treatment at an acute care hospital (ACH) for a high 
spinal cord injury. The enrollee was intubated/ventilated upon presentation and received a tracheotomy in short 
order. The enrollee remains on a ventilator. Given the nature of her injury, it seems unlikely that the enrollee 
will be fully liberated from a ventilator or decannulated. There is no evidence that the enrollee requires services 
that are not currently available. As LTACHs and ACHs are licensed to provide the same level of care, there is 
no advantage in transferring the enrollee to the LTACH. 
 
 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: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the enrollee needs a higher level of care 
than skilled nursing facility. You also say that the enrollee cannot continue to remain in the short-term acute 
care hospital. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this 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 the short-term acute care hospital can provide for all of the patients present inpatient 
care needs and the patient is receiving an appropriate level of care in the present setting. Our reviewer found 
that transfer to an LTACH is not necessary. Our physician reviewer also found that continued care in the short-
term acute care hospital is appropriate until the patient is stable to transfer to a lower level of care such as an 
inpatient rehabilitation facility, a skilled nursing facility or long-term care facility or home with home health 
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 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: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Gel-One. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Gel-One. You say that this drug is medically necessary for the enrollee. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says coverage of this drug does not meet the Plan's internal policy. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for a drug or biological only if it is safe 
and effective and otherwise reasonable and necessary.  
 
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 Gel-One. Our reviewer says that Gel-
One is not medically necessary for this enrollee. Our physician reviewer found the record indicates that the 
enrollee has a diagnosis of postoperative pain from a medial menisectomy and chondroplasty for a tibial 
plateau chondral lesion. The Food and Drug Administration has not stated that the requested drug is indicated 
for the enrollee's condition. The Medicare approved drug compendia do not contain a supportive citation for the 
use of the requested drug in the enrollee's clinical situation.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Gel-One have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Gel-One.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Rituxan. 
 
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. The rules say that Medicare pays for a drug or biological only if it is safe 
and effective and otherwise reasonable and necessary.  
 
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 stiff person syndrome. 
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not stated that the requested drug is indicated for the enrollee's 
condition. The Medicare-approved drug compendia do not contain a supportive citation for the use of the 
requested drug in the enrollee's clinical situation. Rituxan is therefore 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 Rituxan.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Ruxience. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the medication. You say that the medication is necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says Ruxience is not being prescribed for an indication as listed by the Food and Drug 
Administration (FDA) or the relevant LCD. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for a drug or biological only if it is safe 
and effective and otherwise reasonable and necessary.  
 
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 medication. Our physician reviewer found the record indicates that the enrollee has myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody-associated 
disease. The Food and Drug Administration has not stated that the requested drug is indicated for the enrollee's 
condition. The Medicare approved drug compendia do not contain a supportive citation for the use of the 
requested drug in the enrollee's clinical situation. The noted condition is not an enumerated indication for 
which coverage is available. The record provided does not establish the medical necessity and reasonableness, 
as defined by Medicare rules, of the requested service. The elements of the coverage criteria are not satisfied. 
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 the medication have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve Ruxience.
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 extra therapy to get stronger.  You said that 
you cannot go home because you would be unable to take care of yourself. The Plan denied your request. The 
Plan says IRF care not not medically necessary because you can be managed at a lower level of care. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found you do not require the intensity of services provided at an IRF. Specifically, you are not shown to require fifteen hours per week of rehabilitative services and 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 inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the home health aide (HHA) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the home health aide (HHA) services. You say that the enrollee requires 
skilled nursing care due to several conditions. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this is not being 
done for medical reasons or to help with skilled nursing or therapy care. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that HHA services may be covered if it is medically 
necessary for the enrollee to receive skilled nursing or therapy.  
 
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 home health aide (HHA) services. 
Our physician reviewer found the health plans denial should be upheld. The enrollee does not have 
documented skilled nursing needs. The enrollee does not have documented skilled therapy needs. As such, 
associated HHA services are not shown to be medically necessary or reasonable to assist in the treatment of 
illness or injury. 
 
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 home health aide (HHA) services have not been met. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the home health aide (HHA) services.
Appeal type: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve additional routine transportation trips (A0100). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve additional routine transportation trips. You say that you have congestive 
heart failure and diabetes, and you need to make it to all of your appointments. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says you have exhausted the maximum benefit of 20 one-way trips per year. 
 
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 20 one-way 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 trips (A0100).
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve admission to a skilled nursing facility (SNF). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve admission to a SNF. You say that the requested admission to a SNF is 
medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet criteria for SNF 
admission. 
 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 admission to a SNF. Our reviewer says 
that daily skilled services are not necessary. Our physician reviewer found the member has stabilized medically 
and is ready for discharge from the hospital.  The member does not require skilled nursing and/or skilled 
therapy services on a daily basis.  He is medically stable and can receive further rehab services at a lower level 
of care.  Although further rehab services would be appropriate to improve function, as a practical matter, the 
intermittent skilled services can be provided at a lower level of care than 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 admission to a SNF have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve admission to a skilled nursing facility (SNF).
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an intensive 
rehabilitation program 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 complexity of your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not require an 
acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. Our reviewer found that 
you do not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, 
and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While you have a need for physical and/or occupational 
therapy, there is no documentation of a need for an intensive rehabilitation program. Our physician reviewer 
also found that 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. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the stay is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the stay is not medically necessary based on IRF 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 there is no documentation that you require the intensive rehabilitation therapy 
program provided in an inpatient rehabilitation facility. Records do not clarify that treatment at the skilled 
nursing facility level or in the home with home health services is not appropriate in this case. 
 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 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. 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 medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found you were admitted to the hospital 
with gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and for breast surgery. You are now medically stable with no complex 
nursing or rehabilitation needs. You do not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While you have a need for 
physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documentation of a need for an intensive rehabilitation 
program. 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. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you are unable to care for yourself and cannot get 
out of bed or to the bathroom on your own. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says IRF care is not 
medically necessary. The Plan states your ongoing skilled therapy and nursing needs can be provided at a lower 
level of care such as at a skilled nursing facility, on an intermittent basis at home with home health care, or in a 
long-term care setting. 
 
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 you have a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documentation of a need for an intensive rehabilitation program. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Prolia. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Prolia. You say that the enrollee has tried and failed Boniva and Actonel. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says step therapy criteria have not been met for Prolia. 
 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 Prolia. Our reviewer says that step 
therapy criteria are not met. Our physician reviewer found the documentation does not support the both oral 
bisphosophonates and Zoledronic Acid would be unsafe or ineffective for the enrollee in this case, and there 
has not been a triage of both of these drugs. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Prolia have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pre-approve Prolia.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve a Positron Emission Tomography (PET)/computed tomography 
(CT) scan (78815). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a PET/CT scan. You say that the requested PET/CT scan (78815) is 
medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the enrollee does not meet criteria for 
the requested PET/CT scan (78815). 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that PET scans are covered only when they are 
medically necessary.  
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve a PET/CT scan. Our reviewer says that 
the requested PET/CT scan (78815) is medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee is with 
enlarging pulmonary nodule over time. Radiology recommended PET/CT or biopsy. A PET/CT scan is 
approved with a strong suspicion of malignancy. As this nodule has increased over time and a PET/CT scan 
was recommended by a radiologist, the enrollee meets Medicare criteria. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of a PET/CT scan have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-
approve a Positron Emission Tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) scan (78815).  
 
If the Plan does not agree with our decision, they can ask us to open a case again. We only open a case again 
if we believe there was a mistake or if there is new information to review. The Plan has to show us the mistake 
and/or send us the new information. This does not happen often. If we decide to open the case again, we will 
send you a letter.