Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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 device. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says there is no documentation that this enrollee is enrolled in a Medicare-approved clinical 
study looking at the benefits of spacer devices in lumbar spinal stenosis. 
 
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 device. Our reviewer says that the 
requested services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer 
found that this device is experimental. 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 device have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve the Vertiflex device.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve genicular nerve radiofrequency ablation. 
 
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 experimental. 
 
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 in this case, the record indicates that the enrollee has osteoarthritis of the knee.  There is insufficient 
literature to support the safety and efficacy, as defined by Medicare rules, of the requested service. The 
elements of the coverage criteria are not satisfied. 
 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 genicular nerve radiofrequency ablation.
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 of denied 
authorization. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the coverage criteria has 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 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. The enrollee 
requires treatment by multiple therapies, including physical therapy and occupational therapy, but this can be 
provided in a lower level of care. There is reasonable expectation that this enrollee will be able to fully 
participate in and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF, but the services 
required can be provided at a lower level of care.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for continuous glucose monitor (CGM) supplies provided on 
August 16, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the CGM supplies. You say that you have provided documentation to support 
payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the documentation you provided does not support 
that all coverage criteria are met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that therapeutic CGMs are considered medically 
reasonable and necessary when prescribed in accordance with their FDA indications for enrollees with diabetes 
who are insulin treated or who have a history of problematic hypoglycemia, and have had an in-person visit 
with their treating physician to evaluate their diabetes control and determine whether the criteria for coverage 
have been met. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The documentation indicates that the enrollee does not meet several 
of the required criteria for coverage of CGM supplies.  First, there is no evidence that the enrollee tests their 
blood glucose via finger sticks. Second, there is no evidence that the enrollee uses insulin.  In fact, the medical 
records indicate that the enrollee uses Metformin, not insulin. Third, there is nothing in the enrollee's medical 
records to indicate that they have been trained on the use of a CGM. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the CGM supplies have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pay for continuous glucose monitor (CGM) supplies provided on August 16, 2023.
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Monoferric. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve Monoferric. 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. 
 
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 Monoferric. Our reviewer says that the 
services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the provided records do not indicate that 
the enrollee has tried and failed the plan's preferred step one alternative. The record does not indicate that the 
enrollee has a contraindication to, or would have an adverse effect from the plan's preferred step one 
alternative. The elements of the coverage criteria are not satisfied. The requested service cannot be 
recommended. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Monoferric have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve Monoferric.
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 IRF services. 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 the enrollee is deconditioned and does not require intensive rehabilitation therapy or 
frequent physiatry oversight.  
 
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: Testing
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the needle electromyography, short-latency somatosensory 
evoked potential study and central motor evoked potential study billed with code(s) 95861, 95938 and 95939 
provided on May 23, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the tests. You say that the services were billed correctly and should be paid. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the medical records did not include a procedure report to verify the 
billed services. 
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that the provider, supplier, or beneficiary, as 
appropriate, must furnish to the intermediary or carrier sufficient information to determine whether payment is 
due and the amount of payment. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that there is insufficient 
information in the record to determine if Medicare rules for coverage of the tests have been met. The provider 
did not include the procedure report to support reason for the appeal. The plan has provided evidence that they 
have made multiple attempts to contact the provider to retrieve the report but were unsuccessful. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the needle electromyography, short-latency somatosensory 
evoked potential study and central motor evoked potential study billed with code(s) 95861, 95938 and 95939 
provided on May 23, 2023.
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 medical records provided support the 
need for the requested LTACH admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request for LTACH 
services to be covered does not meet the requirements for approval. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that LTACH services are covered if they are medically 
necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the LTACH services. Our reviewer says 
that the requested LTACH care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee appears to require only short-term additional acute care services that can 
safely be provided at the current facility until more stable and appropriate for transfer. The enrollee does not 
require services at the LTACH that are not available at the acute care hospital.  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. Given there are alternatives, LTACH 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 long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee requires an expedited appeal as a delay 
in the decision for an acute rehabilitation stay will jeopardize her chance for a full recovery. 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. 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a shower/bath chair.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a shower/bath chair. You say that you have a fractured knee and a bruised 
pelvic bone. You also say that you live alone and have almost fallen several times when trying to take a 
shower. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this item is not covered by Medicare. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that shower chairs are not covered because they are 
not primarily medical in nature.  
 
While a shower chair may be appropriate in this case, neither the Plan nor Medicare offers coverage of this 
item. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a shower/bath chair.
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 meets the criteria for admission to the 
IRF and will benefit from acute inpatient rehabilitation that cannot be accomplished at a lower level of care. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's medical and therapy needs could be met in a skilled 
nursing unit.  
 
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 and can be 
provided in a lower level of care. The enrollee requires treatment by multiple therapies, including physical 
therapy and occupational therapy, but this can be provided in a lower level of care. There is documentation that 
there is 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, but the services required can be provided at a 
lower level of care.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: unknown
Decision: unknown

The rules say that plans must pay for a medical service or item if regular Medicare would pay for it in this case. You can find this rule at 42 CFR ?422.101. The rules say that a Medicare plan may restrict members to a network of providers as long as medically necessary covered care is accessible and available through this network. The rules say that the Plan must arrange for specialty care outside of the Plan provider network when network providers are unavailable or inadequate to meet a member's medical needs. You can find this rule at 42 CFR ?422.112(a)(3). If you want to read these Medicare rules, you can go to this web site www.medicareappeal.com.The Plan contract says that the Plan covers items and services in accordance with Medicare rules. The Plan contract says that, with limited exceptions, members of the Plan must use network providers to get medical care and services. The only exceptions are emergencies, urgently needed care when the network is not available (generally, when the enrollee is out of the area), out-of-area dialysis services, and cases in which the Plan authorizes the use of out-of-network providers. You can find this information on pages 41 and 42 of the 2019 EOC.
Appeal type: unknown
Decision: unknown

The rules say that plans must pay for a medical service or item if regular Medicare would pay for it in this case. You can find this rule at 42 CFR ?422.101.Medicare guidance says non-participating providers are required to furnish necessary information to the health plan when requested. You can find this Medicare guidance in the Medicare Managed Care Manual, Chapter 4 Benefits and Beneficiary Protections, 20.3 (MAO Responsibility), 110.1 (Access and Availability Rule) and Medicare Benefit Policy Manual, Chapter 15.If you want to read these Medicare rules, you can go to this web site www.medicareappeal.com.The Plan contract says that the Plancovers items and services in accordance with Medicare rules.
Appeal type: unknown
Decision: unknown

The rules say that plans must pay for a medical service or item if regular Medicare would pay for it in this case. You can find this rule at 42 CFR ?422.101. The rules say that medically necessary services are those that are reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis or treatment of an illness or injury. Medically necessary services include services to improve the functioning of a malformed body member. You can find this rule in the Social Security Act, Section 1862(a)(1)(A). The rules say that services that are not medically necessary are not covered. The rules also say that experimental and investigational devices are not covered. You can find this rule at 42 CFR ??411.15 and 411.15(o). If you want to read these Medicare rules, you can go to this web site www.medicareappeal.com.The Plan contract says that the Plan covers items and services in accordance with Medicare rules.
Appeal type: unknown
Decision: unknown

The rules say that plans must pay for a medical service or item if regular Medicare would pay for it in this case. You can find this rule at 42 CFR ?422.101. A pneumatic compression device (PCD) coded as E0652 is covered for the treatment of lymphedema extending onto the chest, trunk and/or abdomen when all of the following are met:-The beneficiary has lymphedema of an extremity.-The coverage criteria for an E0650 or E0651 PCD are met.-The beneficiary has lymphedema extending onto the chest, trunk and/or abdomen that extends past the limits of a standard compression sleeve, and the chest, trunk and/or abdominal lymphedema has failed to improve with a four-week trial.A four-week trial of conservative therapy demonstrating failed response to treatment with an E0650 or E0651 PCD is required. The four-week trial of conservative therapy must include all of the following:-At least four weeks of regular, daily, multiple-hour home usage of the E0650 or E0651 PCD after careful, in-person fitting, training and supervision by a technician who is skilled in and who regularly and successfully uses the appliance provided-Compliant use of an appropriate compression bandage system or compression garment to provide adequate graduated compression-Elevation where appropriate-Manual lymphatic drainage (where available) and self-manual lymphatic drainage (MLD) for at least 30 minutes per day-Evaluation of diet and implementation of any necessary change-Medications as appropriate (e.g. diuretics and/or other treatment of congestive failure, etc.)-Correction (where possible) of anemia and/or hypoproteinemia. You can find this information at Local Coverage Determination (LCD): Pneumatic Compression Devices (L33829). If you want to read these Medicare rules, you can go to this web site www.medicareappeal.com.The Plan contract says that the Plan covers items and services in accordance with Medicare rules.
Appeal type: unknown
Decision: unknown

The rules say that plans must pay for a medical service or item if regular Medicare would pay for it in this case. You can find this rule at 42 CFR ?422.101.
The rules state that the coverage indications for sacroiliac (SI) joint injections are: -Sacroiliac (SI) joint injections would be considered medically reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis and/or treatment of chronic low back pain that is considered to be secondary to suspected sacroiliac joint dysfunction. Diagnostic and therapeutic injections of the SI joint would not likely be performed unless conservative therapy and noninvasive treatments (i.e., rest, physical therapy, NSAIDs, etc.) have failed. -Diagnostic blocks of a sacroiliac joint can be performed to determine whether it is the source of low back pain. Arthropathy (joint disease) is diagnosed through a double-comparative local anesthetic blockade of the joint by the intra-articular injection of a small volume of local anesthetics of different durations of actions. A positive response should demonstrate initial pain relief greater than or equal to 75% to100% and the ability to perform previously painful maneuvers. Steroids may be injected in addition to the local anesthetic. -Therapeutic sacroiliac (SI) joint injections of an anesthetic and/or steroid to block the joint for immediate, and potentially long lasting, pain relief are considered medically reasonable and necessary if it is determined that the SI joint is the source of pain in the lower back. If previous diagnostic or therapeutic SI injections of an anesthetic and/or steroid to block the joint for immediate, and potentially long lasting, pain relief have not effectively relieved the pain, further injections would not be considered medically necessary. You can find these rules in Local Coverage Determination (LCD) Pain Management (L33622). If you want to read these Medicare rules, you can go to this web site www.medicareappeal.com.The Plan contract says that the Plan covers items and services in accordance with Medicare rules