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 requires an LTACH level of 
care and is stable for discharge. You say you have grave concerns about discharge to any lower level of care as 
it would likely result in recurrent hospitalization, morbidity and potential mortality.  The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the requested item or service does not meet the criteria for medical necessity or 
appropriateness. 
 
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 has chronic respiratory failure with tracheostomy. The enrollee has 
been weaned from the ventilator, no longer requires ventilatory support, and they have no wounds. There are 
no specific therapies an LTACH will provide over the acute care setting they are in. 
 
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 is being recommended to be 
assessed both medically and functionally in regard to functional capacity to determine whether the enrollee can 
benefit from a rehabilitation level of care offered by mentioned facility. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says based on Medicare guidelines, 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 with several surgeries and a wound with prior bleeding. The last notes 
from physical therapy state that the enrollee would be candidates for skilled nursing facility care. It is unclear that the enrollee requires specific services from the LTACH and is receiving appropriate services at the acute 
care facility. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve LTACH services.
Appeal type: 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 will benefit from the intensive services 
provided at an IRF to return to prior level of function. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that 
ongoing skilled care can be provided in an alternative 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 that 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 does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational 
therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. Medically necessary care can be provided in a 
different level of care. 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 inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Partially Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve L-3/L-4. We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve  
L-4 to L-5.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve bilateral medial branch blocks at L-3/L-4 and L-5. You say that there was at 
least 80% improvement in pain for the amount of time the drug used was meant to work after an injection to 
find the source of pain; or at least 50% less pain or increased function for three months after an injection to 
treat the pain. The Plan says that bilateral medial branch block at L-3/L-4 and L-5 does not meet the Medicare 
coverage criteria.  
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve a medical branch block at L-3/L-4.  
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that medial branch blocks are covered when the criteria 
listed in the Medicare rules section of this decision 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 bilateral medial branch block at  
L-3/L-4. Our reviewer says that a bilateral medial branch block at L-3/L-4 is considered medically necessary in 
this case. Our physician reviewer found L3/L4 remains untested and therefore, the enrollee can have that level 
for a diagnostic block. Only, that level is deemed medically reasonable and necessary for diagnostic block. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of bilateral medial branch block at L-3/L-4 have been met. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan has to pre-approve a bilateral medical branch block at L-3/L-4.  
 
We also decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a medical branch block at L-4 to L-5. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that medial branch blocks are covered when the criteria 
listed in the Medicare rules section of this decision 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 a medical branch block at L-5. Our 
reviewer says that a medial branch block at L-4 to L-5 is not considered medically necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found that the enrollee did not achieve the 80% pain relief criteria for the L4-L5 facet 
injection. 
 
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 medial branch block at L-4 to L-5 have not been met. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a medical branch block at L-4 to L-5. 
 
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: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a PET scan.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the PET scan. You say that the PET scan is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the criteria for coverage have not been met. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules state that a PET scan for dementia and neurodegenerative 
diseases are only covered under certain conditions. 
 
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 PET scan. Our reviewer says that 
the service is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the member is suspected of having 
AD versus changes related to a traumatic brain injury and intracerebral hemorrhage. There was no suspicion for 
FTD indicated in the records. Nor is the enrollee noted to meet the diagnostic criteria for FTD. 
 
 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 PET scan have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a PET scan.
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 enrollee is ready to move to the next 
level of care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the requirements for 
admission to an LTACH.  
 
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 documentation does not support that LTACH services are medically 
appropriate. The enrollee is receiving the appropriate care in the current acute care setting as provided 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 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 an admission into a long term acute care 
hospital is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says a long term acute care admission 
is not medically necessary.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that LTACH services are covered if they are medically 
necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the LTACH services. Our reviewer says 
that the requested LTACH care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found that the enrollee was admitted to the acute care hospital for hiatal hernia repair with 
mesh and lysis of adhesions complicated by respiratory failure due to esophageal leak requiring stent and clip 
procedure, chest tube placement, tube feeds, BiPAP, Vapotherm, and EzPaP. Recent notes describe the enrollee as now tolerating tube feeds, status post extubating, status post removal of chest tube, undergoing weaning, but 
still on high flow oxygen via Vapotherm, BiPAP, and still requiring drain care and with ongoing 
dysphagia. The enrollee appears to currently be somewhat unstable and requires additional acute care services 
that can safely be provided at the current facility until more stable and appropriate for transfer. The enrollee 
does not require services at the LTACH that are not already available at the current facility. There are no 
services at the LTACH that the enrollee requires that are not already available and covered at the current 
facility. Transfer to the LTACH is not medically necessary as the enrollee is not yet stable for transfer and as it 
would not be clinically advantageous at this time. Completion of treatment at the current facility is 
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 LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve LTACH services.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Vertiflex procedure at L4-L5. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the Vertiflex procedure. You say that you are appealing the denial with 
supporting medical records. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this procedure 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 the Vertiflex procedure. Our reviewer 
says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found that the Vertiflex device is experimental. 
 
 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 Vertiflex procedure have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve a Vertiflex procedure at L4-L5.
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 IRF services to overcome 
mobility issues and address functional deficits. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request 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 enrollees 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 weakness and sacral ulcer after recent hospitalization for urinary tract infection and 
congestive heart failure. 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 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. 
 
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 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 medical records support the medical necessity for 
IRF admission. 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 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 rehabilitation hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary 
approach to rehabilitation care. The enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either 
physical therapy or occupational therapy, at an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. The enrollee continues 
to have a need for skilled therapy with ongoing safety concerns and a potential for functional improvement 
however, the documentation doesn't support that they would meet criteria for admission to an acute inpatient 
rehabilitation facility. There is no indication that the enrollee would require skilled rehabilitation in an IRF, 
participating in rehabilitation services 15 hours a week, under the supervision of a physician with at least 3 
visits weekly to regain or maintain functional status. The enrollee can receive further care 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 IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the third level facet joint injection. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the injection. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the joint injection 
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 the injection. Our reviewer says that 
that the enrollee did not meet the LCD coverage criteria. Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee has 
chronic neck pain without radiation, and the C1-C2 facet block is not supported by the literature.  
 
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 injection have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve the third level facet joint injection.
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 a SNF admission is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the criteria 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 qualify for SNF coverage. The enrollee does not have 
documented skilled nursing or therapy needs. Daily skilled services are not required to establish a maintenance 
program or to prevent deterioration of the enrollee's condition. The enrollee's care needs, custodial and 
intermittent, can be provided at a lower level of care. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of SNF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care.
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 an IRF admission is medically necessary. 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 and can be 
provided in 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.