Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that you would like to request reconsideration of the 
denied authorization. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the coverage criteria has 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 require the level of intensity of skilled therapy services provided in 
the skilled nursing facility setting. You have limited mobility and ability to perform daily activities at baseline 
and have had some degree of decline in your level of function. You may benefit from therapy but does not 
require the intensity of therapy provided 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 skilled nursing facility (SNF) care.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Life2000 device. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a Life2000 device. You say that the requested item is a medical necessity 
for the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that ventilators may be covered when they are medically 
necessary for patients who have neuromuscular disease, thoracic restrictive diseases, and chronic respiratory 
failure due to COPD. 
 
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 Life2000 device. Our reviewer says 
that the requested item is not medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found 
that the Life2000 device is not a true ventilator, because it is not capable of providing full ventilatory 
support. Its primary intended use is during activity and not to treat chronic carbon dioxide (CO2) retention 
during sleep. The enrollee's arterial blood gas (ABG) study does not show CO2 retention. There is inadequate 
evidence of the safety and effectiveness of the requested device in the treatment of COPD.  
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 Life2000 device have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a Life2000 device.
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 records provided support the need for IRF care. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the guidelines for coverage have not been met. 
 
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 suffered multiple rib fractures and a pneumothorax. He is deconditioned 
but is functioning at a supervision to contact guard level for transfers, ambulation to 150 feet and toileting. The enrollee is functioning at a home care level and does not require intensive therapy. 
 
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: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Vabysmo. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the Vabysmo. You say that the drug is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee has not met the step therapy requirements. 
 
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 Vabysmo. Our reviewer says that 
this drug is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found 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 plan's preferred step one 
alternative. 
 
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 Vabysmo have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve the Vabysmo.
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 requires ongoing physical and 
occupational therapy as well as physician and nursing care. 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 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. 
 
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. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee is 
functioning at a high enough level and does not warrant this level of intensity 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 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  
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: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve myocardial perfusion imaging. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve myocardial perfusion imaging. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 
the requested service is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that items and services that are not medically 
necessary are not covered.  
  We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve myocardial perfusion imaging. Our 
reviewer says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this 
case. Our physician reviewer found the purported indication is for shortness of breath, but the limited 
documentation shows only an office visit reporting no cardiac or pulmonary symptoms. There is no 
documentation that the electrocardiogram shows an uninterpretable pattern and there is no evidence provided 
that would support the need for this testing. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of myocardial perfusion imaging have not been met. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pre-approve myocardial perfusion imaging.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve a continuous glucose monitor (CGM). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the CGM. You say that your physician prescribed the CGM, and it is 
medically necessary for you to have. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the Medicare criteria 
was not met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare health plans must make reasonable and 
diligent efforts to gather and forward to the IRE information regarding its decision to deny coverage or 
payment. 
 
The Plan has not made reasonable and diligent efforts to gather and forward to us information regarding their 
decision to deny your request. Specifically, the Plan did not provide us with medical records from their 
participating provider. Contracted providers are considered agents of the Plan. The Plan has not provided us 
with the information needed to make a determination regarding their denial and whether the criteria for the 
CGM coverage have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-approve a continuous glucose 
monitor (CGM).  
 
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.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a VIA Disc NP allograft procedure. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the requested services. You say that the enrollee has failed conservative 
treatment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there is little evidence that this is an appropriate 
procedure for back pain. 
 
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 requested services. Our physician 
reviewer found that Via Disc Allograft procedure is experimental for back pain. More research is needed to 
show its safety and efficacy. Therefore, the request is not medically reasonable or necessary. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the requested services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve a VIA Disc NP allograft procedure.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a lumbar laminectomy with decompression. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the requested services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there is 
no nerve impingement. 
 
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 requested services. Our physician 
reviewer found that the medical records do not show evidence of severe spinal stenosis. There is no correlation 
with physical exam showing radiculopathy. Therefore, the requested services are not medically necessary. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the requested services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve a lumbar laminectomy with decompression.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient hospital level of care. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve acute inpatient hospital care. You say that inpatient is medically necessary 
as opposed to observation level. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says criteria for inpatient level of care 
are not met. 
 
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 level of care are met. Our 
physician reviewer found the record does not show that the admitting physician would reasonably expect that the enrollee's necessary hospital care will span at least 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 acute inpatient hospital level of care.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that you would like to request 
reconsideration of the denied authorization. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the coverage 
criteria has 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 that the enrollee does not require services at the LTACH that are not available at the 
acute care hospital where they are currently receiving care. All medically necessary care is being provided in 
the current acute care setting. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve LTACH services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a manual wheelchair. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve these services. You say that you disagree with the denial. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the services are not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that a manual wheelchair is covered when specific 
criteria are met. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve these services. Our reviewer says that 
the services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that you had a physical therapy 
evaluation on December 8, 2022 that indicated you are independent with bed mobility and require assistance 
for transfers and when ambulating with a walker. You are receiving personal care assistance at home for daily 
activities. You are able to ambulate with a walker and are independent with transfers and mobility; therefore, 
the criteria for coverage for the manual wheelchair are not met and the services are not reasonable or medically 
necessary at this time. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of these services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a manual wheelchair.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an Optimizer Smart Implantable Pulse Generator. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve an Optimizer Smart Implantable Pulse Generator. You say that the services 
are necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says medical necessity has not been established. 
Therefore, coverage criteria have not been met. 
 
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 Optimizer Smart Implantable Pulse 
Generator. Our reviewer says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and 
necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found while the clinical studies led to FDA approval in 2019, 
cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) remains the subject of multiple studies examining long-term efficacy, 
as well as randomized, controlled, double-blinded trials to quantify clinical efficacy. Until such statistically 
rigorous studies are completed, it is premature to presume clinical outcomes and benefit. At the current time, 
the CCM system is not considered to be medically necessary in this 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 an Optimizer Smart Implantable Pulse Generator have not been met. Therefore, 
we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an Optimizer Smart Implantable Pulse Generator.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve cone beam CT capture and interpretation with field of 
view of one full dental arch  mandible (D0365). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve dental services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this service is 
not covered under your Plan. 
 
Medicare generally does not cover dental services. However, the Plan offers a dental benefit that exceeds 
Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plans coverage rules apply in this case. . Cone beam CT capture and 
interpretation with field of view of one full dental arch  mandible is not covered under the Plans dental 
benefits. 
 
Though the Plan offers a dental benefit in excess of Medicare coverage, the requested D0365 is not among 
those covered under this benefit. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve cone beam 
CT capture and interpretation with field of view of one full dental arch  mandible (D0365).
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 the enrollee does not 
have complex nursing or medical needs requiring a resource intensive inpatient hospital 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 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. 
 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.