Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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 stay is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the stay is not medically necessary based on IRF criteria. 
 
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 
does not support that the enrollee 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 the enrollee's functional status. The enrollee can receive further services 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: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Prolia. 
 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 step therapy requirement is not met. 
 
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 these services. Our reviewer says that 
the services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has not tried and failed the 
plan's required drugs, an oral bisphosphonate or zoledronic acid. The records do not show that the required 
drugs would be contraindicated or less effective; therefore, Prolia is 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 Prolia.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve implantation of a pacemaker (33208). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve implantation of a pacemaker. You say that implantation of a pacemaker is a 
medical necessity for the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says implantation of a pacemaker 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 implantation of a pacemaker. Our 
reviewer says that the requested services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. 
Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee has undergone ambulatory electrocardiogram monitoring, which 
has not shown correlation of symptoms and heart rate abnormality. There is no submitted documentation of 
symptomatic bradycardia. As such, the evidence provided would not meet criteria for pacemaker implant.  
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of implantation of a pacemaker have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve implantation of a pacemaker (33208).
Appeal type: Testing
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a sleep study with continuous positive airway pressure 
(CPAP) titration. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve these services. You say that you disagree with the denial. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the services are not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that a sleep study is covered when specific criteria are 
met. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve these services. Our reviewer says that the services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found there is no documentation the 
performance of an Epworth Sleepiness Scale for the enrollee. The criteria for coverage are not met and the 
sleep study 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 a sleep study with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) titration.
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 stay is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the stay is not medically necessary based on IRF criteria. 
 
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 
does not support that the enrollee 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 the enrollee's functional status. The enrollee can receive further services 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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) 
procedure concurrent with carotid stent placement (37215). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a PTA procedure and stent placement. You say that a PTA procedure and 
stent placement are a medical necessity for the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says a PTA 
procedure and stent placement 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 a PTA procedure and stent placement. 
Our reviewer says that the requested services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this 
case. Our physician reviewer found that for the requested services to be considered medically necessary, there 
needs to be evidence of high risk for carotid endarterectomy. The criterion regarding degree of stenosis (>80%) 
has been met. However, in its current form there is no evidence of enrollee- or anatomy-related high-risk 
elements. The enrollee is 70 years old with no significant co-morbidities documented and there is no evidence 
of prior carotid surgery, high lesion, or other anatomic factor that would be considered high risk. 
 
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 PTA procedure and stent placement have not been met. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) procedure 
concurrent with carotid stent placement (37215).
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 services are medically necessary for the enrollee 
to regain their baseline and improve quality of life. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee 
does not meet the criteria for admission to 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 enrollee continues to have a need for skilled therapy with ongoing safety 
concerns and a potential for functional improvement however, the documentation doesnt 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 rehab services 15 hours a week, under 
the supervision of a physician with at least 3 visits weekly to regain or maintain their functional status. The 
enrollee can receive further services 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 long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the enrollee will benefit from daily 
assessment by an interdisciplinary care team. 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: 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 were independent prior to your hospitalization 
and an IRF admission would help you regain your strength. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you 
do not meet the Medicare criteria for admission to 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 rehab hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. You continue to 
have a need for skilled therapy with ongoing safety concerns and potential for functional improvement, but the 
documentation does not support that you would meet criteria for admission to an IRF. You can receive further 
services 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: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Zilretta. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Zilretta. You say that you disagree with the Plan's denial. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the requested drug is 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 Zilretta. Our reviewer says that the 
documentation does not support that the requested drug is medically reasonable or necessary. Our physician 
reviewer found the enrollee has a diagnosis of osteoarthritis of the shoulder. The Food and Drug 
Administration has not stated that the requested drug is indicated for the enrollee's condition. The Medicare 
approved drug compendia do not contain a supportive citation for the use of the requested drug in the enrollee's 
clinical situation. Therefore, the enrollee does not meet criteria for the requested drug.  
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Zilretta have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pre-approve Zilretta.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a positron emission tomography (PET) scan. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the PET scan. You say that the records provided support medical necessity. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the criteria for coverage have not been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that PET scans are covered only when they are 
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 pre-approve the PET scan. Our reviewer says that 
the service is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee may be monitored with CT 
scans which was the modality that detected abnormal internal mammary lymph nodes. The records do not 
indicate any additional benefit of a PET scan for surveillance. 
 
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 positron emission tomography (PET) scan.
Appeal type: Testing
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for the diagnostic colonoscopy provided on 
January 12, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for the diagnostic colonoscopy. You say that you were told by your 
insurance broker there would be no charge for this procedure. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this 
cost sharing was charged correctly. 
 
The rules say a plan must disclose to its enrollees in clear, accurate terms all cost sharing information (such as 
copayments, deductibles and coinsurance). Your contract with the Plan clearly says that you must pay a $20 
copayment for outpatient diagnostic tests. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $20 copayment for the diagnostic colonoscopy. This item/service falls within the 
outpatient diagnostic tests benefit category. This means that you have been asked to pay the correct amount based on your contract with the Plan. This cost sharing is a contractual obligation you agreed to pay when you 
enrolled in the Plan. The medical records show you had polyps removed during your colonoscopy. According 
to the EOC, if polyps were removed during a colonoscopy, the procedure is considered diagnostic. Therefore, 
we decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for the diagnostic colonoscopy provided on 
January 12, 2023.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a home ventilator. 
 
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 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 these services. Our reviewer says that 
the services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has a diagnosis of sarcoidosis and interstitial lung disease with moderate restrictive and obstructive defects on pulmonary function 
testing. The home ventilator is being requested for use in targeted tidal volume - volume assured pressure 
support (TTV-VAPS) mode with auto-EPAP (AE) which could be provided by a bilevel positive airway 
pressure (BiPAP) device with average volume assured pressure support (AVAPS) and a back-up rate. A trial 
and failure of this device has not been documented. The ventilator is therefore not reasonable or medically 
necessary at this time. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of these services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a home ventilator.
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 services are medically necessary for the enrollee 
to receive intensive therapy to regain their independence. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
enrollee does not meet the Medicare criteria for admission to 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 enrollee does not require the intensity of services provided at an IRF. 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.