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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Injectafer. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve Injectafer. You say that the enrollee does not have an iron deficiency 
anemia. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 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 Injectafer. Our reviewer says that 
Injectafer is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee has not tried and failed the 
required drug Venofer. Also, there is no indication that the enrollee would likely be less effective or would 
likely have adverse effects. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Injectafer have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Injectafer.
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Lenalidomide (J8999). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the medication. You say that the medication is 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 Lenalidomide (J8999).   
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: 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 you are requesting an expedited appeal 
for the denial of an LTACH admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says criteria for admission to 
the LTACH have not been met. 
 
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 does not require services at the LTACH that are not available at the acute 
care hospital where they are currently receiving care. The 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: 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 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 kyphoplasty. 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 trial of a back brace. More conservative measures are 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 kyphoplasty have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve kyphoplasty (22513).
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee requires intense therapy in an IRF 
setting so they can regain their ability to walk and balance themself without assistance. 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 that the enrollees medical problems are stable and there are no complex nursing or 
rehabilitation needs. While the medical record supports a need for physical or occupational therapy, there is no 
documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different 
level of care. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for home health services provided from September 5, 2021, to September 
21, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for home health services. You say that you have billed the services at issue correctly. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that rules for payment have not been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare health plans must make reasonable and 
diligent efforts to gather and forward to the IRE information regarding its decision to deny coverage or 
payment. 
 
The Plan has not made reasonable and diligent efforts to gather and forward to us information regarding their 
decision to deny your request. The Plan has not provided a specific, verifiable denial rationale. It is the Plans 
responsibility to provide support for its denial with evidence. In this case, the Plans denial is not supported, so 
we must find in your favor. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for home health services provided 
from September 5, 2021, to September 21, 2021.  
 
If the Plan does not agree with our decision, they can ask us to open a case again. We only open a case again 
if we believe there was a mistake or if there is new information to review. The Plan has to show us the mistake 
and/or send us the new information. This does not happen often. If we decide to open the case again, we will 
send you a letter.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the enrollee requires close monitoring of 
their wounds, weekly laboratory tests, nutrition monitoring, wound care, and daily physician rounding. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says admission to the LTACH is not medically necessary.  
 
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 that there is no documentation provided indicating medical necessity for admission to 
an LTACH. 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 Plan. The requested LTACH services are not medically necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee and able to be furnished safely and 
effectively only on an inpatient basis. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve LTACH services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee meets IRF admission criteria, and their 
ongoing rehabilitative needs warrant an IRF level of care to achieve a safe and sustainable discharge. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says criteria for admission to the IRF setting have not been met.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found that the complexity of the enrollees nursing, medical, and rehabilitation needs does 
not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The 
enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational 
therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While the enrollee may have a need for physical 
therapy and/or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. 
Medically necessary care can be provided in a different level of care. There is not a reasonable expectation that 
this patient will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy program 
provided in an IRF. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve an 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 you are requesting reconsideration for the denial of 
an IRF admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says your request for an IRF admission does 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 do not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. While the 
medical record supports a need for physical or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive 
rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different level of care. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for the observation discharge care (99217) provided on December 20, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the hospital care. You say that the qualifying services were paid under a different 
claim. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the admission does not meet the criteria for acute 
inpatient level of care. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare health plans must make reasonable and 
diligent efforts to gather and forward to the IRE information regarding its decision to deny coverage or 
payment. 
 
The Plan has not made reasonable and diligent efforts to gather and forward to us information regarding their 
decision to deny your request. The Plan did not substantiate their denial as the file supports that observation 
care was provided and billed as such. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for the observation 
discharge care (99217) provided on December 20, 2022.  
 
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: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Botox. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve Botox. You say that the enrollee would like reconsideration because the 
services are medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 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 Botox. Our reviewer says that Botox is 
not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee has not tried and failed the required 
drugs Dysport or Xeomin. Also, there is no indication that the required drugs would likely be less effective or 
would likely has 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 Botox have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pre-approve Botox.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an Intracept procedure. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a surgical procedure. You say that the enrollee has pain back. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says this procedure 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 a surgical procedure. Our reviewer says 
that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the cause of back pain is unclear. 
 
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 surgical procedure have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve an Intracept procedure.
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 clearly meets the criteria for 
a medically appropriate LTACH admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says criteria for admission 
to the LTACH have not been met. 
 
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 does not require services at the LTACH that are not available at the acute 
care hospital where they are currently receiving care. The 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: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the fungal infection polymerase chain reaction (PCR) 
panel provided on October 6, 2022.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the fungal infection PCR panel provided on October 6, 2022.. You say that 
this testing was medically necessary to treat the enrollee's diagnosis. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says the guidelines state that fungal infection of the nail can be verified by direct microscopic examination with 
potassium hydroxide, fungal culture of desquamated subungual material, or fungal stain of a nail clippings 
fixed in formalin.  
 
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 fungal infection PCR panel 
provided on October 6, 2022. Our reviewer says that the requested items/services are not considered medically 
reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found that the longstanding standard of care for 
the evaluation of fungus in toenails is the performance of both KOH and fungal culture on a toenail specimen. 
These laboratory tests are inexpensive, sensitive, and specific. It is unclear as to why this enrollees toenail 
required PCR testing as compared to KOH and fungal culture. Therefore, the PCR testing of this enrollees 
right hallux toenail was not medically reasonable or 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 the fungal infection PCR panel provided on October 6, 2022. have not been 
met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the fungal infection polymerase chain 
reaction (PCR) panel provided on October 6, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve hyperbaric oxygen therapy.  
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the therapy. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the records do not show no measurable signs of healing over at least 30 days. 
 
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 therapy. Our reviewer says that the 
requested services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer 
found that as noted in the medical documentation, on 6/1/23 the ulceration was measured at 1.3 cm x 1.2 cm x 
2.6 cm and on 6/22/23 the ulceration was measured at 1.2 cm x 0.8 cm x 1.9 cm. These measurements 
demonstrate improvement of the ulceration. The requested hyperbaric oxygen therapy does not meet the 
guidelines as noted above and cannot be considered medically reasonable or 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 the therapy have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve hyperbaric oxygen therapy.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the additional moderate sedation time provided on date of 
service November 23, 2022, billed with code 99153. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 99153. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says code 99153 
is not payable in the facility setting.  
 
Medicare rules say that the OPPS recognizes that CPT code 99153 is a PE only code and that PE are not 
payable to the physician for services provided in the facility setting.   
We find that payment for CPT code 99153 is not supported. Specifically, there is no separate payment to the 
physician for CPT code 99153 when performed in the facility setting. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pay for the additional moderate sedation time provided on date of service November 23, 2022, 
billed with code 99153.