Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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 a home ventilator. You say that a home ventilator is medically necessary. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says use of a home ventilator is not medically necessary. The patient's 
needs can be met with a bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) device with an average volume-assured 
pressure support (AVAPS) mode. 
 
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 a home ventilator. Our reviewer says 
that a home ventilator is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the record indicates that the 
enrollee has chronic respiratory failure from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The record indicates that 
the enrollee was successfully treated with BiPAP.  The provided primary source documentation does not 
contain sufficient detailed information in the medical record to justify the treatment selected. The enrollee 
could be treated with a BiPAP machine with AVAPS capability and failure of such a device has not been 
documented.  The plan has indicated coverage for such a device is available upon request. 
 
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 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a home ventilator.
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 a home ventilator. You say that the patient has had multiple hospitalizations, 
so this device is needed. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says use of a home ventilator is not medically 
necessary. The patient's needs can be met with a bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) device with an 
average volume-assured pressure support (AVAPS) mode. 
 
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 a home ventilator. Our reviewer says 
that a home ventilator is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the record indicates that the 
enrollee has chronic respiratory failure from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and obesity hypoventilation 
syndrome with restrictive physiology.  The record indicates that the enrollee was successfully treated with 
BiPAP.  The provided primary source documentation does not contain sufficient detailed information in the 
medical record to justify the treatment selected. The enrollee could be treated with a BiPAP machine with 
AVAPS capability and failure of such a device has not been documented. 
 
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 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a home ventilator.
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 a home ventilator. You say that the patient's oxygen levels decrease during 
sleep and this device is the last option to help them live a normal life. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says use of a home ventilator is not medically necessary. The patient's needs can be met with a bilevel positive 
airway pressure (BiPAP) device with an average volume-assured pressure support (AVAPS) mode 
 
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 a home ventilator. Our reviewer says 
that a home ventilator is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found he record indicates that the 
enrollee has chronic respiratory failure from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and obesity hypoventilation 
syndrome. The record indicates that the enrollee was successfully treated with BiPAP.  The provided primary 
source documentation does not contain sufficient detailed information in the medical record to justify the 
treatment selected. The enrollee could be treated with a BiPAP machine with AVAPS capability and failure of 
such a device has not been documented.  
 
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 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a home ventilator.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that the enrollee needs physical therapy services to be 
able to go home. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says ongoing skilled care can be provided in an 
alternative setting. 
 
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 have daily skilled nursing needs that require the specialized 
skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional nurse. The enrollee does not have daily skilled therapy 
needs that require the specialized skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional therapist. The 
enrollee does not require daily skilled nursing or skilled therapy on an inpatient basis in a skilled nursing 
facility (SNF) 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 skilled nursing facility (SNF) care.
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 stay is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the stay is not medically necessary based on LTACH criteria.  
 
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 the LTACH that the enrollee requires that are not 
available at the health care setting being offered by the Health Plan. The Health Plan has approved ongoing 
care in the current acute care 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 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve geniculate artery embolization (36246, 36247). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve geniculate artery embolization. You say that the services are necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says medical necessity has not been established. Therefore, coverage 
criteria have not been met. 
 
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 geniculate artery embolization. Our 
reviewer says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this 
case. Our physician reviewer found this is still considered an experimental/ investigational approach to 
persistent knee pain after knee replacement. Therefore, the request is deemed not medically reasonable and 
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 geniculate artery embolization have not been met. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pre-approve geniculate artery embolization (36246, 36247).
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 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, outpatient setting, or home health 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 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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a cardiac rhythm monitor. 
 
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 cardiac rhythm monitor 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 of any prior 
noninvasive studies of heart rhythm in the enrollee's medical records. The current guidelines recommend using 
noninvasive assessment before any invasive/implantable devices are contemplated. The services are 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 cardiac rhythm monitor.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve the implantable loop reader (ILR) (33285). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the ILR. You say that the service is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says that the service is not 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 ILR. Our physician reviewer found 
the enrollee meets the criteria for the implantable loop recorder (ILR). 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 ILR 
have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-approve the implantable loop reader (ILR) 
(33285).  
 
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: 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 you are unable to care for yourself and require 
rehabilitation. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request 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 that you do not have skilled nursing needs that require the specialized skill, 
knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional nurse. You do have skilled therapy needs that require the 
specialized skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional therapist. You do not require daily skilled 
nursing and/or skilled therapy on an inpatient basis in a SNF 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a powered pressure-reducing mattress. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the services. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says this request is unable to be approved. 
 
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 services. Our reviewer says that the 
requested services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer 
found that based on the medical records provided, there is no documentation that the enrollee in this case has 
multiple stage II pressure ulcers located on the trunk or pelvis, which have been treated in a comprehensive 
program or large or multiple stage III or IV pressure ulcer(s) on the trunk or pelvis or the enrollee has had a 
myocutaneous flap or skin graft for a pressure ulcer on the trunk or pelvis within the past 60 days. The 
provided records in this case document one stage II sacral ulcer and a left heel ulcer. 
 
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 services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a powered pressure-reducing mattress.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve minimally-invasive lumbar decompression (MILD). 
 
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 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 these services. Our reviewer says that 
the services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the requested MILD procedure is 
considered experimental in nature. More research is needed to show its safety and efficacy. The services are 
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 minimally-invasive lumbar decompression (MILD).
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a skin substitute (Grafix PRIME, GrafixPL PRIME, 
Stravix, and Stravix PL). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the services. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says this 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 the services. Our reviewer says that the 
requested services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer 
found that the medical documentation indicates that the enrollee is suffering from an ulceration of the left foot. 
The medical documentation also supports that this enrollee has type II diabetes with polyneuropathy. The 
medical documentation does not support that this enrollee has undergone routine ulcer care including routine debridement, offloading, and dressings. There is no mention of antibiotics if there was underlying infection. 
 
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 services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a skin substitute (Grafix PRIME, GrafixPL PRIME, Stravix, and Stravix PL).
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the intracept procedure (64628). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the service. You say that the service is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says this enrollee does not meet the evidence based criteria. 
 
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 service. Our reviewer says that the 
requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found there is no magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showing only modic changes without facet 
degenerative joint disease (DJD) or foraminal stenosis. The cause of back pain is not clear. 
 
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 service have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve the intracept procedure (64628).
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the knee orthosis (L1851). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the knee orthosis. You say that the orthosis is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the documentation does not show you meets the coverage guidelines. 
 
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 knee orthosis. Our physician 
reviewer found an L1851 knee orthosis is not medically necessary as you have not had recent injury to or a 
surgical procedure on the knee(s). The physician notes from April 11, 2023, states that you deny injury 
associated with the onset of your symptoms. There is no recent surgery of the knees. The physician 
documentation does not show knee instability on a physical exam with an objective description of joint laxity 
(e.g., varus/valgus instability, anterior/posterior Drawer test). The LCD 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 the knee orthosis have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve the knee orthosis (L1851).
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve kyphoplasty (22513). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve kyphoplasty. 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 PVA (percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) or 
kyphoplasty (PKP)) 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 kyphoplasty. Our reviewer says that the 
services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found no compelling rationale is presented or 
extenuating circumstances noted to support the medical necessity of this request as an exception. Therefore, the 
enrollee does not meet the coverage criteria detailed in the LCD. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of kyphoplasty have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve kyphoplasty (22513).