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 these services are medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the required services you need can be provided in an alternate setting.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found 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. You do not require treatment by multiple therapies. 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 
you 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 long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the enrollee cannot be managed at a 
lower level of care and risks further deterioration if not approved for LTACH. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says the enrollee is receiving appropriate inpatient 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 medical record does not indicate that the enrollee requires services that they are 
not currently receiving. The enrollee still requires acute care services before transitioning to 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 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: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Atorvastatin. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the medication. You say that the requested drug is medically necessary. 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 Atorvastatin.  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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve an Ottobock C-leg knee and Ottobock Taleo foot.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve an Ottobock C-leg knee and Ottobock Taleo foot. You say that the items are 
medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the items are not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that coverage is extended only if there is sufficient 
clinical documentation of functional need for the technologic or design feature of a given type of knee. This 
information must be retained in the treating practitioner's or prosthetist's files. 
 
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 Ottobock C-leg knee and Ottobock 
Taleo foot. Our reviewer says that the items are medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the medical 
records support the enrollee is a K3 ambulator and requires the microprocessor parts. 
 
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 Ottobock C-leg knee and Ottobock Taleo foot have been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan has to pre-approve an Ottobock C-leg knee and Ottobock Taleo foot.   
 
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: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Reblozyl. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the drug. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says Reblozyl 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 the drug. Our reviewer says that 
Reblozyl is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the requested use of Reblozyl is not 
FDA-approved. Reblozyl is also not supported by one of the major drug compendia or by clinical research. 
 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 drug have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Reblozyl.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an oxygen concentrator to be provided by an out-of-
network (OON) provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve an oxygen concentrator. You say that the enrollee requests to stay with the 
provider that has been providing them service. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that an oxygen 
concentrator is available in network. 
 
Medicare rules say that plans can require enrollees to get care from network providers. The contract with the 
Plan says that the Plan has to pre-approve care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving 
emergencies, out of area urgent care and care that cannot be provided by network providers. 
 The requested provider in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan has network providers 
available who can provide the items/services at issue in this appeal. We found no exception that would require 
the Plan to pre-approve these items/services. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve 
an oxygen concentrator to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Eylea (J0178). 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve Eylea. You say that there is a national recall on Avastin as it could cause 
blindness. You say it is medically necessary to switch to Eylea for the enrollee to keep their eyesight. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says step therapy requirements have not been 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 Eylea. Our reviewer says that the 
criteria for coverage of Eylea have not been met. Our physician reviewer found there is no indication that the 
enrollee has tried and failed the required drug(s). Based on the medical records provided and the Medicare-
approved major drug compendia, there is no indication that the Plan's required drug(s) would likely be less 
effective and/or likely have adverse effects for the enrollee. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Eylea have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pre-approve Eylea (J0178).
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 based on medical necessity. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested 
service 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 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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the ViaDisc NP procedure.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the ViaDisc NP procedure. You say that the procedure is medically 
necessary and indicated for the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the Via Disc NP 
procedure is not medically necessary. The Plan says the procedure is not considered the standard of care for the 
enrollee's condition. 
 
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 ViaDisc NP procedure. Our 
reviewer says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this 
case. Our physician reviewer found there is limited published, large-scale, long-term peer-reviewed literature 
that shows this request to be an effective and/or safe treatment for the noted pathology. Further studies are needed to demonstrate this request has beneficial outcomes compared with conventional treatment. There is no 
compelling rationale presented or extenuating circumstances noted to support the medical necessity of this 
request as an exception. Therefore, the requested ViaDisc NP procedure 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 ViaDisc NP procedure have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve the ViaDisc NP procedure.
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 appeal for the denial 
of an IRF admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says admission to the IRF is not reasonable and 
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: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the drug testing services provided on January 9, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the billed services 
cannot be verified. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that the physician must clearly document, in the 
medical record, his or her intent that the test be performed. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The documentation submitted does not contain a valid physician 
order or lab requisition for the specific testing provided in this case. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pay for the drug testing services provided on January 9, 2023.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for infusion supplies for an external drug infusion pump 
(A4222) provided on February 24, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for infusion supplies. You say that you disagree with the denial. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says code A4222 is not eligible for reimbursement. 
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate CPT code. 
 
We find that CPT code A4222 has a Status Indicator of X on the Physician Fee Schedule. This means that 
procedure code A4222 is not in the statutory definition of "physician services" for fee schedule payment 
purposes. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of infusion supplies have not 
been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for infusion supplies for an external drug 
infusion pump (A4222) provided on February 24, 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 the inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) services 
requested are medically necessary as the enrollee was previously independent with all ADLs but is now only 
able to walk 30 feet. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the inpatient rehabilitation facility (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 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 
was admitted for lumbar spine surgery. Medical problems are stable. The enrollee does not require treatment by 
multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation 
therapy program. While the medical record supports a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is 
no documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a 
different level of care. There is not a reasonable expectation that this enrollee will be able to fully participate in 
and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Botox (J0585). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Botox. You say that the request is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the use of this drug is not reasonable and 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 Botox. Our reviewer says that the 
requested use of Botox is not supported. Our physician reviewer found the accepted use of this drug for the 
given condition requires the enrollee not have an acute urinary tract infection (UTI) and/or acute urinary 
retention. Based on the documentation provided, it was affirmed by the provider that the enrollee does have a 
UTI and/or acute urinary retention. The review has determined that the enrollee does not meet the LCD criteria 
for coverage. The requested use of Botox is not FDA-approved for the enrollees diagnosis. Its use is 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 Botox have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pre-approve Botox (J0585).
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Sprint peripheral nerve stimulator (PNS). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Sprint PNS. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the clinical value and effectiveness of Sprint PNS System in the setting of chronic low 
back pain have not been demonstrated in the peer-reviewed literature. 
 
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 Sprint PNS. Our reviewer says that the 
requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found this is considered experimental therapy and is the subject of ongoing clinical trials. 
 
  We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Sprint PNS have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve the Sprint peripheral nerve stimulator (PNS).
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the enrollee currently meets LTACH 
admission criteria. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet requirements for a 
LTACH admission. 
 
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 are no services available at a LTACH that the enrollee requires, that are not 
available at the health care setting being offered by the Plan. Given there are offered alternatives, LTACH 
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 the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve LTACH services.