Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Intracept procedure (64628, 64629 x2). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the Intracept procedure. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet 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 Intracept 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 no magnetic resonance imaging showing only modic changes without facet 
degenerative joint disease 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 Intracept procedure have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve the Intracept procedure (64628, 64629 x2).
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a domiciliary, rest home provided on December 19, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the domiciliary, rest home visit. You say that the services were medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the Plan requires utilization of network providers 
when possible and available and requires authorization for certain services. No medical necessity for an out-of-
network provider such as an urgent or an emergent situation that has been documented.   
 
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 pay for care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving emergencies, 
out of area urgent care and pre-approved care. The requested provider in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan did not pre-approve the 
services at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay for these services. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a domiciliary, rest home provided on December 19, 2022.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Barostim Neo device (0266T, C1825). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the Barostim Neo device. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the Barostim Neo device is considered unproven and 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 Barostim Neo device. Our reviewer 
says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found there remains an absence of randomized, blinded clinical studies examining long-
term clinical outcomes establishing the value of Barostim Neo in patient management. As a result, at this time 
the Barostim Neo system would not be considered medically reasonable and necessary in this enrollees 
clinical management. 
 
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 Barostim Neo device have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve the Barostim Neo device (0266T, C1825).
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve the vertical shock reducing pylon (L5988). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the vertical shock reducing pylon. You say that the item is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the item is 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 foot. 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 the vertical shock reducing pylon. Our 
reviewer says that the enrollee meets coverage criteria for this item. Our physician reviewer found the item is 
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 vertical shock reducing pylon have been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan has to pre-approve the vertical shock reducing pylon (L5988).  
 
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 acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the services are medically necessary for your 
complex medical needs. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you do not meet the criteria for admission 
to an IRF.  
 
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 you do not require treatment by multiple therapies. 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: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve continued home health skilled nursing services (G0299) 
after July 17, 2023. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve home health services after July 17, 2023. You say that the services are 
medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services are not medically necessary.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that home health care services may be covered if it is 
medically necessary for the enrollee to receive skilled nursing or therapy. A doctor must certify the need for 
home health care services. 
 
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 home health services after July 17, 
2023. Our reviewer says that the services are not medically reasonable and necessary. Our physician reviewer 
found the wound does not require dressing or continued observation from a skilled nurse. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of home health services after July 17, 2023, have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve continued home health skilled nursing services (G0299) 
after July 17, 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 this level of care is necessary for the enrollee to 
receive rehabilitation. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the criteria for 
admission to an IRF.  
 
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 does not require treatment by multiple therapies. 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: 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 admission is medically necessary for the enrollee. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's records do not show the need for an intensive team 
your care. Services needed may be provided safely in a lower level of 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 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. 
 
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: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for subsequent nursing facility care provided from 
January 7, 2023, to January 28, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the subsequent nursing facility care. You say that the services were medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the Plan requires utilization of network providers 
when possible and available and requires authorization for certain services. No medical necessity for an out-of-
network provider such as an urgent or an emergent situation that has been documented.   
 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 pay for care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving emergencies, 
out of area urgent care and pre-approved care. 
 
The requested provider in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan did not pre-approve the 
services at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay for these services. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for subsequent nursing facility care provided from January 7, 2023, 
to January 28, 2023.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that the requested admission to a SNF is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the requested admission to a SNF 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 considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee requires the level of observation and treatment provided in terms of 
physician oversight and skilled nursing care given the complexity of his spinal cord injury. The enrollee 
requires skilled nursing services, including wound management and bowel and bladder management. The 
enrollee also continues to have a significant decline in his ability to perform daily activities and mobility. 
Therefore, the enrollee would benefit from therapies in the skilled nursing facility setting. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of SNF care have been met. The Plan must continue coverage for the SNF skilled 
service until such time as the enrollee no longer needs the service and proper notice has been issued, or the 
100-day Medicare benefit is exhausted. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-approve skilled nursing 
facility (SNF) care.  
 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 long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the services are medically necessary for 
the enrollee to make a full recovery. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says it is not safe for the enrollee 
to leave the current hospital at this time.  
 
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 is receiving appropriate care in the current acute care setting provided by 
the Health Plan. The medical documentation does not support that LTACH services are medically appropriate 
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 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a replacement continuous glucose monitor (CGM). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the replacement CGM. You say that you are unable to keep sensors in place 
and you feel the services are necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the clinical records did not 
indicate that the member's current CGM was defective or broken. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that equipment which the beneficiary owns or is a capped 
rental item may be replaced in cases of loss or irreparable damage. 
 
  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 replacement CGM. Our reviewer 
says that the requested replacement CGM coverage criteria are not satisfied. Our physician reviewer found that 
the records indicates that the enrollee has received a monitor in 2023 and does not indicate that the device has 
been lost or is malfunctioning due to irreparable damage. The most recent documentation is from August of 
2022 and is insufficient to establish the medical necessity and reasonableness, as defined by Medicare rules, of 
the requested service. The requested service is not 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 the replacement CGM have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve a replacement continuous glucose monitor (CGM).
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 services are medically necessary for you to 
receive the therapy services needed. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you do not meet the criteria 
for admission to an IRF.  
 
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 you do not require treatment by multiple therapies. 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: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the office visit provided on April 26, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the office visit. You say that you are requesting reconsideration of the denied 
claim. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that unauthorized, out-of-network care is not covered. 
 
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 pay for care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving emergencies, 
out of area urgent care and pre-approved care. 
 
The provider of the item(s)/service(s) at issue in this appeal is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan 
did not pre-approve the item(s)/service(s) at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay 
for the item(s)/service(s). Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the office visit provided 
on April 26, 2022.
Appeal type: Outpatient Therapies
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a ganglion impar block. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a ganglion impar block. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the requested service is experimental/investigational/unproven. 
 
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 ganglion impar block. Our reviewer 
says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found there are limited large-scale, long-term references showing the safety and efficacy of 
the requested block in this clinical setting. No compelling rationale is presented, or extenuating circumstances 
noted to support the medical necessity of this request as an exception. 
 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 ganglion impar block have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve a ganglion impar block.
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 admission is medically necessary for the enrollee. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not have complex rehab or medical needs. 
Services needed may be provided safely in a lower level of 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 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. 
 
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.