Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a group 3 power wheelchair with multiple power 
options (E0955, E1007, E1012, E1028, E2311, E2313, E2361, E2377, E2603, K0108, K0861). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a group 3 power wheelchair with multiple power options. 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 a group 3 power wheelchair with 
multiple power options. Our reviewer says that the services are not medically necessary. Our physician 
reviewer found the enrollee has a mobility limitation but does not have a diagnosis of neurological disease, 
myopathy or congenital skeletal deformity causing mobility limitation for which a group 3 power wheelchair 
base would be medically necessary. The enrollee had no need for a ventilator or for power tilt and recline. The 
documentation does not support that the enrollee is at high risk for development of a pressure ulcer, utilizes 
intermittent catheterization for bladder management, or needs a power seating system to manage increased tone 
or spasticity. The enrollee has no history of prior pressure ulcer and no documentation of flap surgery. The 
requested group 3 power wheelchair with multiple power options exceeds the enrollee's medical need and is not 
medically necessary. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of a group 3 power wheelchair with multiple power options have not been met. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a group 3 power wheelchair with multiple 
power options (E0955, E1007, E1012, E1028, E2311, E2313, E2361, E2377, E2603, K0108, K0861).
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to provide coverage for skilled nursing facility (SNF) care.

You asked the Plan to provide coverage for SNF care. You say that the Plan denied your request. The Plan says
Medicare coverage criteria were not met. Maximus overturned the Plans denial. The Plan requested a reopen
and noted that Maximus did not apply the correct criteria. The Plan noted that the medical records show at the
time of the appeal you had non-weight-bearing restrictions and your progress had plateaued.

The Plan is correct in this case. 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. At
the time of the appeal, you were non-weight bearing and your needs were only custodial in nature. Medicare
rules for coverage of SNF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to provide
coverage for skilled nursing facility (SNF) care.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a home ventilator system. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a home ventilator system. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says a 
home ventilator is not medically necessary for this patient because their needs can be met with an alternative 
device such as a BiPAP device with average volume-assured pressure support (AVAPS).  
 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. Claims for ventilators used to provide CPAP or bi-level CPAP therapy will be denied as 
not reasonable and 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 a home ventilator system. Our reviewer 
says that a home ventilator system is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee 
has severe CPD and recurrent hospitalizations with exacerbations. The enrollee was recently admitted 
November 28, 2023, and their arterial blood gases were consistent with acute on chronic hypercarbic 
respiratory failure. However, there is no diagnosis of thoracic restrictive disease or neuromuscular disease. 
While the enrollee may benefit from BiPAP with AVAPS during sleep as an outpatient, it has not been tried 
and failed as an outpatient. Therefore, a home ventilator is not medically necessary. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of a home ventilator system have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve a home ventilator system.
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 have difficulty walking. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says 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 the complexity of your nursing, medical, and rehabilitation needs does not require an 
acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. Your medical problems 
are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. You do 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 therapy and/or occupational therapy, there is 
no documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. 
There is not a reasonable expectation that you will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive 
rehabilitation therapy 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: 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 this 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 the provided records in this case do not 
document a recent diagnosis of dementia and documented cognitive decline of at least 6 months, or that the 
enrollee meets diagnostic criteria for both Alzheimer's disease and frontotemporal dementia. 
 
   
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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Vertiflex device. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the Vertiflex device. You say that the enrollee's condition has greatly 
impacted the quality and functionality of their life. You say that the Vertiflex device is considered safe and 
effective. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the Vertiflex device is not medically necessary. The 
Plan says the enrollee has a lack of pain improvement with flexion and a history of mild decompression done at 
the same level as the requested Vertiflex. 
 
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 device. Our reviewer says 
that the requested service is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found the Vertiflex device is experimental, and more research is needed.  
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 device have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve the Vertiflex device.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve SNF care. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that SNF care is necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says SNF care is not medically necessary. 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 require daily skilled nursing or therapy services. The enrollee 
does not meet the severity of illness or intensity of service criteria for an inpatient basis in a skilled nursing 
facility setting. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of SNF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve 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 you are requesting reconsideration for the denial of 
an IRF admission. 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 enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. While the 
medical record supports a need for physical 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: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve trastuzumab (Q5117) and pertuzumab (J9306). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve trastuzumab and pertuzumab. You say that the requested drugs are 
medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested use of this drug combination is 
not supported.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare may pay for unlabeled uses for anti-cancer 
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 trastuzumab and pertuzumab. Our 
reviewer says that the requested drug combination is not supported. Our physician reviewer found the Food and 
Drug Administration has not stated that the requested drug regimen is indicated for the enrollee's specific 
condition. The requested use of trastuzumab and pertuzumab is also not supported by one of the major drug 
compendia or by clinical research that appears in a CMS-approved medical journal. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of trastuzumab and pertuzumab have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve trastuzumab (Q5117) and pertuzumab (J9306).
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve placement of CardioMEMS device. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the CardioMEMS device. You say that this is medically necessary for the 
enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this is experimental and therefore is not covered. 
 
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 CardioMEMS device. Our reviewer 
says that the requested CardioMEMS device is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. 
Our physician reviewer found there remains a dearth of randomized, blinded clinical studies examining long-
term clinical outcomes establishing the value of CardioMEMS in patient management. Therefore, the reviewer 
found that the requested CardioMEMS device is not medically reasonable or necessary. 
 We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the CardioMEMS device have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve placement of CardioMEMS device.
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 regain lost 
function and increase his safety. 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 based on the limited documentation provided, the enrollee is not shown to require, or 
to be able to perform, fifteen hours per week of rehabilitative services with regular physician review. 
Therefore, IRF admission is not medically  necessary.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of 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 ongoing medical monitoring for 
current medical conditions and intensive therapy access to specialized care. You also say the enrollee's needs 
cannot be met at a lower level of care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 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 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. 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 therapy and/or 
occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. 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. 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 IRF care is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the IRF care is not medically necessary, and the enrollee's needs can be met at a 
lower level of care such as a skilled nursing facility.  
 
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 was admitted for sepsis. 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.  
 
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: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an occlusal guard (D9944). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve an occlusal guard. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says this is not a covered benefit. 
 
Medicare generally does not cover dental services. However, the Plan offers a dental benefit that exceeds 
Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plans coverage rules apply in this case. 
 
Though the Plan offers a dental benefit in excess of Medicare coverage, the requested items or services are not 
among those covered under this benefit. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an 
occlusal guard (D9944).
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve private duty nursing services (S9123, S9124). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve private duty nursing services. You say that this is medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested services are not covered. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that the services of a private-duty nurse or other 
private-duty attendant are not covered. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of private duty nursing services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve private duty nursing services (S9123, S9124).