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 require 24-hour daily care and assistance. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the member's needs can be met with part-time therapy services. 
 
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 you do not have daily skilled nursing needs that require the specialized skill, 
knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional nurse. You do have identifiable skilled therapy needs that 
require the specialized skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional therapist. However, you do not 
require daily skilled nursing or skilled therapy on an inpatient basis in a SNF setting. Required services 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the home ventilator (E0466). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the ventilator. You say that the ventilator is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the ventilator 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 the ventilator. Our physician reviewer 
found this enrollee may benefit from bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) with average volume-assured pressure support (AVAPS) during sleep as an outpatient, if enrollee compliance can be achieved. Medicare 
does not cover a home ventilator when used at settings that can be provided with BiPAP. 
 
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 ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve the home ventilator (E0466).
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 member has complex care needs that 
require an LTACH admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the member is receiving 
appropriate in-patient acute care and is currently unstable for transfer 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 the record indicates that the enrollee has ongoing acute medical issues and still 
requires acute care services. 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 they are not currently 
receiving but that would be available at the LTACH facility. The requested service cannot be recommended as 
the elements of the coverage rules 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 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 acute IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you are requesting reconsideration of the denial. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the admission to an IRF 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 that you are deconditioned after major surgery and are medically stable. You do not 
have complex or intensive rehabilitation needs to recover from a deconditioned state post-acute illness. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Durysta 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve these services. You say that you disagree with the denial. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the services are not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare may pay for unlabeled uses for FDA-
approved drugs if they are medically accepted as safe and effective or appropriate for the particular use.  
 
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 a diagnosis of primary 
open-angle glaucoma. The records show he has been treated with Durysta in the past. The Food and Drug 
Administration (FDA) has not stated that the requested drug is indicated for repeat administration for the 
enrollee's condition. The Medicare-approved drug compendia do not contain a supportive citation for the use of 
the requested drug as prescribed in the enrollee's clinical situation. Durysta is therefore not reasonable or medically necessary. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of these services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve Durysta
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the high frequency chest wall oscillation system, 
includes all accessories and supplies (E0483). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the DME. You say that the DME is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the enrollee's records do not show that the enrollee has bronchiectasis or any of the 
other conditions for which this device is indicated. 
 
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 DME. Our physician reviewer 
found there is no diagnosis of cystic fibrosis, bronchiectasis, neuromuscular disease, or diaphragm paralysis. A 
chest computerized tomography (CT) scan from 2021 describes a lung mass, but there is no mention of 
bronchiectasis.  Medicare does not cover this device in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 
(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 the DME have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve the high frequency chest wall oscillation system, includes all accessories and supplies (E0483).
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 member's clinical condition meets full inpatient 
acute rehabilitation criteria. 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 member is a 67-year-old female with a medical history including hypertension, 
morbid obesity and cardiac disease who was admitted to the hospital with shortness of breath. She was 
diagnosed and treated for an acute exacerbation of chronic lung disease. She stabilized medically and was 
discharged to a skilled nursing facility for inpatient rehab services. The most recent therapy notes indicate that 
the member requires minimal to moderate assistance for functional mobility and to ambulate short household 
distances. Her participation with therapy is limited due to poor endurance. 
 
In this case, the complexity of the members nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not require an acute 
rehab hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The member does not 
require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, at an 
intensive rehabilitation therapy program. There is not a reasonable expectation that this individual will be able 
to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in an inpatient 
rehabilitation 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 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 EV Rider Transport M Folding Scooter. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve EV Rider Transport M Folding Scooter. You say that the services are 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says based on the documentation provided, coverage criteria 
has not been met. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that power mobility devices 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 EV Rider Transport M Folding Scooter. 
Our reviewer says that the services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found based on the 
medical records provided there is no documentation that you have a personal mobility deficit that impairs 
participation in mobility related activities of daily living such as toileting, feeding, grooming and bathing in 
customary locations within the home. There is no documentation that your mobility deficit cannot be helped by 
the use of a walker, cane or manual wheelchair. There is no documentation that you can safely operate a power 
mobility 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 EV Rider Transport M Folding Scooter have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve EV Rider Transport M Folding Scooter.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Tramadol. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Tramadol. 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 Tramadol.   
Benefits for Tramadol 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: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve home health services. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve home health services. You say that you would like to request 
reconsideration of the denied authorization. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services are not 
medically necessary. 
 
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 home health services. Our reviewer 
says that the services are not medically reasonable and necessary. Our physician reviewer found the 
documentation doesnt support that the member requires additional home health skilled nursing 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 home health services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve home health services.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Trulicity (C9399). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Trulicity. 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 Trulicity (C9399).   
Benefits for Trulicity 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve therapeutic facet joint injections. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve therapeutic facet joint injections. You say that the services are necessary. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says based on the documentation provided, coverage criteria has not 
been met. 
 The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that therapeutic facet joint procedures are considered 
medically reasonable and necessary for patients who meet specific criteria. 
 
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 therapeutic facet joint injections. Our 
reviewer says that the services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has not 
had two (2) medically reasonable and necessary diagnostic facet joint procedures with each one providing a 
consistent minimum of 80% relief of primary (index) pain (with the duration of relief being consistent with the 
agent used. The review has determined that the enrollee does not meet the coverage criteria detailed in the 
LCD. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of therapeutic facet joint injections have not been met. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pre-approve therapeutic facet joint injections.
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 at high risk for falling and not able to return 
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 your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not require an 
acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. You do not require 
treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive 
rehabilitation therapy program. There is not a reasonable expectation that this member 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 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 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 the intensity of services provided at an IRF. 
Specifically, the enrollee is not shown to require fifteen hours per week of rehabilitative services and regular 
physician evaluation. The enrollees care needs can be met at a lower level of care. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: 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 this IRF stay is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the enrollee's current medical stability and lack of medical complexity does not 
require an IRF admission. 
 
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 member is a 77-year-old male with a medical history including hypertension who 
was admitted to the hospital after a mechanical fall resulted in a fracture of the left acetabulum and pelvis. He 
has remained medically stable. The most recent therapy notes indicate that the member requires contact guard 
to minimal assistance for functional mobility and to ambulate up to 20 feet. 
 
In this case, the complexity of the members nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not require an acute 
rehab hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The member does not 
require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, at an 
intensive rehabilitation therapy program. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.