Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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 you would like the plan to reconsider their 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 Prolia. Our reviewer says that the
documentation does not support that the requested drug meets step therapy criteria. Our physician reviewer
found the enrollee has osteoporosis. The documentation does not support that the enrollee has tried and failed
Zoledronic Acid. There is no documentation provided indicating that the plan's required drug 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 Prolia have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to
pre-approve Prolia.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Vertiflex device for the enrollee.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the device. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says unproven and not medically necessary procedures are not covered by Medicare due to insufficient evidence of efficacy.
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 services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found the record indicates that the enrollee has chronic low back pain and lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication. The record indicates that imaging has demonstrated that the enrollee has multi-level degenerative disease including moderate to severe spinal stenosis at L1-L2, the level requested for treatment. The record does not indicate that the pain is relieved in flexion. 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 the device have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Vertiflex device for the enrollee.
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Prolia.
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 step therapy requirement is not 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 these services. Our reviewer says that the services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has an unspecified disorder of bone density and structure. She has not tried and failed the Plan's required drug, Reclast. The records do not show that the required drug would be contraindicated or less effective; therefore, Prolia 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 Prolia.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an electroencephalogram (EEG) to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the OON EEG. You say that the doctor who performed your open-heart surgery is also monitoring your pace maker. You say that you are high risk for other medical issues as well. You say that you are requesting to use the out of network facility because it is connected to all of your current doctors. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says EEG services are available in-network, and it is not medically necessary to receive these services out of network.
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 an electroencephalogram (EEG) 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 long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the admission to an LTACH is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the admission to an 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 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. 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: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve additional routine transportation trips.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve routine transportation. You say that no other transportation is available to you. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the denial of authorization for additional routine transportation trips is correct, because routine transportation beyond 12 one-way trips is not covered by the Plan.
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 Plan's coverage rules apply in this case. The Plan covers a maximum of 12 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.
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 stay is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the stay 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 there is no documentation provided indicating medical necessity for admission to a LTACH. The enroillee is receiving appropriate care at the present acute care hospital. The enrollee does not require services at the LTACH that are not available at the acute care hospital where they are currently receiving care. 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 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 stay is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the stay 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 the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The enrollee was admitted for respiratory failure, pneumonia, NSTEMI, cardiogenic shock, and coronary artery bypass grafting. 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 documentation does support a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for an intensive, multi-disciplinary rehabilitation program. There is not a reasonable expectation that this 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: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the skilled nursing visits (CPT code G0299 X 6).

You asked the Plan to pre-approve the skilled nursing visits. You say that you are requesting review of denial of services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there have been no recent changes to your treatment plan or your medications. The Plan states your medical condition has not changed recently. The Plan states no pain was reported to the nurse. The Plan states your records do not support the need for a skilled nurse to make more visits.

The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that home health care services may be covered if it is medically necessary for the enrollee to receive skilled nursing or therapy. A doctor must certify the need for home health care services. 

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 skilled nursing visits. Our physician reviewer found the health plan's denial should be upheld. You do not have documented skilled nursing needs. As such, the requested, ongoing home health registered nurse services are not shown to be medically necessary or reasonable. 

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 skilled nursing visits have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the skilled nursing visits (CPT code G0299 X 6).
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the acute inpatient hospital care for the left breast mastectomy with left axillary node sampling (CPT code 19307), for the enrollee.

You asked the Plan to pre-approve acute inpatient hospital care. You say that you are requesting this procedure be done as an inpatient stay for monitoring this enrollee's post-operative pain control. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this procedure is not listed on the Medicare 2021 inpatient only list.

The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that inpatient hospital care is covered when the doctor expects the patient to need hospital care that crosses at least two midnights. In rare and unusual cases, consideration may be given to inpatient hospital care when the hospital stay does not cross two midnights or more.

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 acute inpatient hospital care. Our reviewer says that the documentation does not support that the criteria for inpatient payment are met in this case. Our physician reviewer found the medical history and recent clinical documentation was otherwise unremarkable. The provided records did not suggest the enrollee will require hospital services that would likely cross two (2) midnights. 

We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of acute inpatient hospital care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the acute inpatient hospital care for the left breast mastectomy with left axillary node sampling (CPT code 19307), for the enrollee.
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 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 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 medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee was
admitted to the hospital on September 14, 2021, with acute hypoxic respiratory failure secondary to
Coronavirus pneumonia. There is no documentation provided indicating medical necessity for admission to a
LTACH. She is receiving appropriate care at the present acute care hospital. The enrollee does not require
services at the LTACH that are not available at the acute care hospital where she is currently receiving care.
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 LTACH services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a referral for additional acupuncture visits with an out-of-network provider.

You asked the Plan to pre-approve the referral. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this is only covered for chronic low back pain.

The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that acupuncture services are not covered by Medicare. However, for services provided on or after January 21, 2020, Medicare offers limited coverage for acupuncture treatments for CLBP meeting certain requirements, up to 12 sessions per 90-day period, and no more than 20 sessions per year.

We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that the rules for coverage of the acupuncture services have not been met. Specifically, the case file shows that acupuncture is being requested for multiple sclerosis. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a referral for additional acupuncture visits with an out-of-network provider.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Vertiflex device.

You asked the Plan to pre-approve the device. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says unproven and not medically necessary procedures are not covered by Medicare, due to insufficient evidence of efficacy.

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 services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found the device is experimental. More research is needed to show safety and efficacy of the device.

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 Vertiflex device.
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.
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. You were admitted for sepsis, bacteremia, pneumonia and a non stageable sacral ulcer after a recent stroke. You were discharged home on September 24, 2021 and remain weak at home. Medical problems are stable. There are 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 the documentation does support a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for an intensive, multi-disciplinary 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 IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the laboratory services provided on November 7, 2020.

You asked the Plan to pay for the laboratory services. You say that you would like the plan to reconsider their
denial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services billed are not payable.

The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly.
Providers must report services with the appropriate CPT code.

We find that CPT codes 81201, 81317, 81403, 81404, 81405, 81406, 81432, 81479, 81407, 81408, 81295, and
81298 are not supported in the medical record. Specifically, the place of service on the CMS-1500 form line
24B must reflect the location of the enrollee when the specimen was obtained. The submitted claim form
indicates the laboratory specimen was obtained in a laboratory, place of service 81; however, the submitted
medical documentation and/or claim history indicates that the specimen was obtained in an office setting, place
of service 11. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the laboratory services
have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the laboratory services
provided on November 7, 2020.