Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Ilumya (J3245). 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve Ilumya. You say that the enrollee has tried Triamcinolone and is unable to 
take Methotrexate or Humira. You say that the enrollee has had no improvement with topical steroids and light 
therapy. You also say that biologic infusions are not available for the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says the enrollee has not tried and failed the preferred drug, Renflexis. 
 
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 Ilumya. Our reviewer says that the step 
therpay criteria have not been met. Our physician reviewer found the provided documentation does not indicate 
that the enrollee has tried and failed the preferred drug, Renflexis. The reviewer also found that there is no 
documentation provided indicating that the Plan's required drug would likely be less effective and/or likely 
have adverse effects for the enrollee. Therefore, the reviewer found that the step therapy criteria have not been 
met. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Ilumya have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pre-approve Ilumya (J3245).
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 would benefit from having 24-hour 
nursing supervision. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services the enrollee needs can be 
provided safely in other settings, for example, a skilled nursing facility (SNF), at home with home health 
services or at home with outpatient therapy.  
 
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 patient's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The enrollee's 
medical problems are stable and 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 the 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 LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the best course of treatment is to admit 
the enrollee to an LTACH setting where they can be closely monitored by a team of physicians daily. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says they will continue to cover medically necessary acute and critical care at the 
current facility until the enrollee's condition is stable for transfer to an alternate level of care (such as a skilled 
nursing facility), or until the clinical circumstances change such that LTACH may be reconsidered. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that LTACH services are covered if they are medically 
necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the LTACH services. Our reviewer says 
that the requested LTACH care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found there is no documentation provided indicating medical necessity for admission to a LTACH. At the time of the request for LTACH services, the enrollee was still maintained on Levophed. The 
notes do not demonstrate improvement or stabilization of acute conditions. The review has determined 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. There are no services available at the LTACH that the enrollee requires that are not 
available at the health care setting being offered by the health plan. The requested LTACH services are not 
medically necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee and are able to 
be furnished safely and effectively only on an inpatient basis. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve LTACH services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that you are requesting LTACH services for 
the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the Medicare criteria 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 the enrollee is receiving appropriate care at the present acute care hospital. The 
enrollee does not require services at the LTACH that are not available at the acute care hospital where the 
enrollee is currently receiving 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 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: Testing
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for the EEG provided on May 28, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the EEG. You say that the EEG was medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says that the EEG does not meet the Medicare coverage criteria.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that if there are no specific coverage rules for an item 
or service, then that item or service will be covered when it is medically necessary.  
 
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 pay for the EEG. Our reviewer says that the 
requested EEG is considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found 
that in this case the enrollee is noted to have undergone a routine EEG while hospitalized. Wake/sleep were 
both captured. The provider only billed for the professional component of this service. In such a context the 
request would be considered to be medically necessary/appropriately coded.  
 
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 EEG have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for the 
EEG provided on May 28, 2023.  
 
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: 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 enrollee needs IRF services as she is 
experiencing a great amount of pain, and the IRF will be able to provide her with the care, monitoring, and 
therapies she is needing to recover. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the 
requirements for 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 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's medical conditions appear improved with no issues that appear to require a physician's evaluation 
three or more times per week in a hospital setting. The enrollee does require physical therapy and occupational 
therapy services, but the medical records provided do not clarify why the enrollee requires an intensive 
inpatient rehabilitation therapy program. Provided medical records do not support that the intensive IRF 
program is necessary and that therapy at a lower level of care such as in a skilled nursing facility (SNF) is not 
appropriate for the enrollee. Based on the records provided the enrollee would be expected to participate in and 
benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF, however the medical records do 
not support a complexity of needs to require an acute IRF over 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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an epidural steroid injection (62323). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve an epidural steroid injection. You say that this is medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says this is not medically necessary because the records show that this 
would be the fifth injection in a rolling 12-month period. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that epidural steroid injections are limited to a maximum 
of 4 sessions per spinal region in a rolling 12-month period. 
 
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 epidural steroid injection. Our 
reviewer says that the enrollee does not meet criteria for coverage. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee 
has received 4 epidural steroid injections in the past 12 rolling months and the requested epidural steroid 
injection would be his fifth injection. Epidural steroid injections are limited to a maximum of 4 sessions per 
spinal region in a rolling 12-month period. 
 
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 epidural steroid injection have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve an epidural steroid injection (62323).
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 being recommended to stay until December 
20, 2023 due to new symptoms of knee pain and buckling. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says it is not 
medically necessary for you to continue to receive care in an IRF.  
 
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 do not require an 
acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. 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. You say that the enrollee needs IRF care to improve overall 
function. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the requirements for 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 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 
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. There is not a 
reasonable expectation that this enrollee will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive 
rehabilitation program provided in an IRF. 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: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve modafinil tablet. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the medication. You say that this is medically necessary for the enrollee. 
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 modafinil tablet.   
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: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health services provided from July 24, 2023, to 
August 22, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for home health services. You say that you are requesting reconsideration for this 
claim as the NOA was sent prior to a system switch. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the claim has 
not been billed with the correct admission date. 
 
 The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that for home health services that are continuing from 2021, a 
NOA must be submitted for the first period of care in 2022, using the first date of the period as the admission 
date. Subsequent claims must report this new date as the admission date in order for the claim to be matched to 
the correct NOA.  
 
We reviewed the file and the Medicare rules. We find that the admission date reported on the claim at issue 
does not match the date for the NOA which is filed for the first date in 2022 as required. Based on this 
information, we find that the Medicare rules for payment of the claim at issue have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health services provided from July 24, 2023, to August 
22, 2023.
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 had hip replacement on a Friday and had 
pneumonia which had you in the intensive care unit for four days. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 
an IRF admission 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 your medical problems are stable and there are no complex nursing or 
rehabilitation needs. 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: 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 is ready for transfer to an IRF for 
physician oversight of their medical complexities. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an IRF 
admission is not medically necessary and the enrollee's needs could be met in a lower level 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 patient's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The patient was 
admitted for cervicothoracic spine surgery. Medical problems are stable. There are no complex nursing or 
rehabilitation needs.  
 
The patient 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 patient 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.