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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve inpatient services for arthroplasty of the shoulder. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve inpatient services. You say that you disagree with the Plan's denial. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested services are 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 inpatient services. Our reviewer says 
that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee was being treated for primary osteoarthritis of the left shoulder. The 
enrollee presented with left shoulder pain. The exam revealed a decreased range of motion and pain. Grinding 
and mechanical symptoms are noted with range of motion. Rotator cuff function is intact, but poor secondary to 
the arthritic pain. Detailed documentation is not evident regarding a significant past and/or current medical history that would place this enrollee at increased risk for peri-surgical complications requiring an inpatient 
stay. There is no compelling rationale presented or extenuating circumstances noted to support the medical 
necessity of this request as an exception. Therefore, the enrollee does not meet criteria for the requested 
inpatient services. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of inpatient services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve inpatient services for arthroplasty of the shoulder.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for home health services provided from September 1, 2021, to 
September 30, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for home health services. You say that you are appealing this denial. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says this claim is missing the required G and Q codes. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that home health care must be billed with a 
corresponding Q- code to indicate where the services were provided.  
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. This claim does not include the required Q- code to indicate where the services were performed. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of home 
health services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for home health 
services provided from September 1, 2021, to September 30, 2021.
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 are requesting an expedited reconsideration for 
the denial of an IRF admission. You say the enrollee will clearly benefit from acute rehabilitation to optimize 
their level of functioning prior to returning home. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the IRF services 
requested 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. 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 inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the percutaneous neuromodulation therapy (PNT) 
(64555, 64590). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the surgical procedure. You say that the attached clinical documentation and 
below summarized bullets supports the medical necessity of this procedure. The Plan denied your request. The 
Plan says the requested service is not covered by Medicare or the Plan. 
 
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 surgical procedure. Our reviewer 
says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found this is considered experimental/ investigational. 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 surgical procedure have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve the percutaneous neuromodulation therapy (PNT) (64555, 64590).
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 are requesting an expedited reconsideration for 
the denial of an IRF admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the IRF services requested 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. 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 inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the MyoPro Motion G assist 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 this device is considered experimental and investigational. 
 
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 that the MyoPro is not the standard of care for this enrollee's condition or in widespread use for this 
enrollee's condition based on scientific evidence. There is insufficient evidence in the literature that the 
MyoPro Orthosis will improve the long-term outcomes for this enrollee. There is insufficient evidence in the 
literature that this device will increase participation in bimanual activities.  
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 MyoPro Motion G assist device.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Xtandi (C9399). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Xtandi. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this drug is not covered 
for the enrollee's condition by Medicare Part B. 
 
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 Xtandi (C9399).   
Benefits for Xtandi 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: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Xifaxan (J8499). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Xifaxan. You say that the enrollee has had long term symptoms, and the 
enrollee needs Xifaxan to control their symptoms. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the medication 
is not covered as a medical benefit under the Plan. 
 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 Xifaxan (J8499).  
 
Benefits for Xifaxan 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the MyoPro orthotic 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 experimental and investigational procedures are not covered by Medicare. 
 
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 that the MyoPro Orthosis is not known to be effective, based on scientific evidence, professional 
standards and expert opinion, in improving health outcomes. The MyoPro is not the standard of care for this 
enrollee's multiple sclerosis condition or in widespread use for this enrollee's condition based on scientific 
evidence. There is insufficient evidence in the literature that the MyoPro Orthosis will improve the long term outcomes for this enrollee. There is insufficient evidence in the literature that this device will 
increase  participation in bimanual activities.  
 
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 MyoPro orthotic device.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Via Disc procedure. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the requested services. You say that the enrollee has failed conventional 
treatments.  The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this is not an accepted standard of practice 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 the VIA disc procedure is experimental. More research is needed to show its safety and 
efficacy. Therefore, the request is 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 Via Disc procedure.
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 are requesting an expedited reconsideration 
for the denial of an IRF admission based on medical necessity. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 
criteria for admission to the acute IRF setting 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 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. 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 inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
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 a safe transition from the hospital 
before the enrollee is sent home. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the 
requirements for a 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 SNF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested SNF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee does not have daily skilled nursing needs that require the specialized 
skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional nurse. The enrollee does have identifiable skilled 
therapy needs that require the specialized skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional therapist; 
however, the enrollee does not require skilled therapy services on a daily basis. The enrollee does not require 
daily skilled nursing and/or skilled therapy on an inpatient basis in a skilled nursing facility (SNF) setting. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of SNF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve bilateral greater saphenous vein (GSV) endovenous 
ablation and bilateral lower extremity tributary vein sclerotherapy. 
 
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 endovenous ablation and sclerotherapy are 
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 the enrollee has numerous 
comorbidities and medical history findings that can also be associated with leg pain including a history of back 
surgery, arthritis in the knee, and multiple risk factors for peripheral artery disease including coronary artery 
disease, prediabetes, and a history of smoking. The narrative for the patient history appears to be largely 
computer-generated and does not reflect a cohesive evaluation aimed at eliciting the source of the patients 
symptoms. Furthermore, the physical examination does not document edema or varicosities, does document the 
absence of skin changes, and is not specific enough to confirm the absence of lower extremity peripheral artery 
disease. The criteria for coverage 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 bilateral greater saphenous vein (GSV) endovenous ablation and bilateral lower extremity 
tributary vein sclerotherapy.
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 records provided support medical 
necessity. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the LTACH services requested 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 acute hospital care, and acute care services have not been 
denied. The documentation shows there are no required medical services identified that are available at the 
LTACH, that are not available at the current health care setting being offered by the health plan. 
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 Levemir Flex pen. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the medication. You say that you have been using this medication for over 
13 years with good results. You also say that you have not had issues with prior authorization until now. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the medication is not covered as a medical benefit under the Plan. 
 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 Levemir Flex pen.  
 
Benefits for the medication 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a home ventilator, any type, used with non-invasive 
interface (E0466). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a ventilator. You say that the medical records provided support the necessity 
of the services in dispute. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says based on Medicare guidelines, this 
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 ventilator. Our reviewer says that the 
requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found a home ventilator is not medically necessary. This enrollee has a diagnosis of COPD and 
apparently currently has a home ventilator. There are no pulmonary function tests to confirm airways 
obstruction and assess severity. There is no arterial blood gas (ABG) done while stable, to document chronic 
carbon dioxide (CO2) retention. There is no evidence that bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) has been 
tried and failed as an outpatient.  
 
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 ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a home ventilator, any type, used with non-invasive interface (E0466).