Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the services are medically necessary for the 
enrollee's complex medical needs. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the 
Medicare guidelines for 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 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 you need to go to rehabilitation so you can get 
stronger. You also say that you want to go home once you are better. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says the IRF services requested 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 your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not require an 
acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. You do not require 
treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive 
rehabilitation therapy program. Our reviewer found that 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. Our physician reviewer also found that there is not a 
reasonable expectation that you will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation 
therapy program provided in an IRF.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Gamunex-C. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Gamunex-C. You say that the requested Gamunex-C to treat 
Hypereosinophilic Syndrome is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
requested Gamunex-C to treat Hypereosinophilic Syndrome is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare may pay for unlabeled uses for FDA-
approved drugs if they are medically accepted as safe and effective or appropriate for the particular use.  
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve Gamunex-C. Our reviewer says that the 
requested Gamunex-C to treat Hypereosinophilic Syndrome is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer 
found the review indicates that the enrollee is with Hypereosinophilic Syndrome and presumed diagnosis of 
Behcet's Disease who is requesting J1561 Injection, immune globulin, (Gamunex/Gamunex-C/Gammaked), 
nonlyophilized (e.g., liquid), 500 mg. The review has determined that the requested use of Gamunex-C is not Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved for the enrollees diagnosis. Its use is not supported by one of 
the major drug compendia or by clinical research that appears in a CMS-approved medical journal. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Gamunex-C have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve Gamunex-C.
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve  Ilumya (J3245). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the drug. You say that the drug is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the enrollee has not tried and failed the preferred drugs.  
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 the drug. Our physician reviewer found 
the record indicates that the enrollee has plaque psoriasis. The requested medication is a new start. 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 the drug have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve  Ilumya (J3245).
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 appealing with supporting records. 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 the enrollee does not have skilled nursing needs that require the specialized skill, 
knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional nurse. The enrollee does not have skilled therapy needs that 
require the specialized skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional therapist. The enrollee does 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: 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. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this request for 
inpatient skilled nursing services 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 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. Our 
reviewer also found that the enrollee does not require daily skilled nursing and/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: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve continued home health services. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve home health services. You say that the enrollee should continue palliative 
care. 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. Our reviewer 
says that the services are not medically reasonable and necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the 
enrollee does not have documented skilled nursing needs. The enrollee's family members can provide care and 
manage the enrollee's medications. As such, ongoing home health skilled nursing services are not medically 
necessary or reasonable. 
 
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 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve continued home health services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the MyoPro 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 experimental and investigational procedures are not covered by Medicare. 
 
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 items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found that the MyoPro Orthosis is not known to be effective, based on scientific evidence, 
professional standards and expert opinion, in improving health outcomes. The MyoPro is not the standard of 
care for this patient's condition or in widespread use for this patient's condition based on scientific evidence. 
There is insufficient evidence in the literature that the MyoPro Orthosis will improve the long-term outcomes for this patient. There is insufficient evidence in the literature that this device will increase participation in 
bimanual activities. 
 
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 MyoPro device.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Group 3 standard power wheelchair with multiple 
power options (K0861) and additional items and accessories (codes E2311, E2313, E2377, E0955, E2361, 
K0108, E0956, E1028, E1007, E2300, E2620, E1012, K0040, E2607, E1028, and E1028). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a Group 3 standard power wheelchair and additional items and accessories. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not have a medical need for multiple power 
options available with a K0861 group 3 power wheelchair. An expandable controller, harness, electronics, and 
headrest are not medically needed. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that a Group 3 PWC with multiple power options (such as 
code K0861) is covered if the criteria listed in the Medicare rules section of this letter are met. Medicare rules 
also say that if the PWC base is not covered, then related accessories will be denied. 
 
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 Group 3 standard power wheelchair 
and additional items and accessories. Our reviewer says that the enrollee does not meet the criteria for 
coverage. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has muscular dystrophy and uses a manual wheelchair. 
Our reviewer also found that the enrollee does not have high risk for skin breakdown, use a catheter 
intermittently, have spasticity or require an alternative means of managing power drive. 
 
 
 
 
 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 Group 3 standard power wheelchair and additional items and accessories have 
not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Group 3 standard power 
wheelchair with multiple power options (K0861) and additional items and accessories (codes E2311, E2313, 
E2377, E0955, E2361, K0108, E0956, E1028, E1007, E2300, E2620, E1012, K0040, E2607, E1028, and 
E1028).
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a pontic (D6245) for tooth #24, and a retainer crown 
(D6740) for tooth #23. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the dental services. You say that this dental work is medically necessary. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says dental x-rays were not sent in. 
 
Medicare generally does not cover dental services. However, the Plan offers a dental benefit that exceeds 
Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plans coverage rules apply in this case. The Plan covers the dental 
services when the services are medically necessary and reasonable.  
 
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 dental services Our physician 
reviewer found a review of the documentation indicates that the bone support of the abutment retainer (#23) is 
poor. The use of a cantilever pontic (#24) is not indicated due to the poor bone support of this abutment 
retainer. 
 We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
the Plan's rules for coverage of the dental services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a pontic (D6245) for tooth #24, and a retainer crown (D6740) for tooth #23.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve destruction by neurolytic agent, paravertebral facet joint 
nerve(s), with imaging guidance (fluoroscopy or CT); cervical or thoracic, single facet joint (64633) and each 
additional facet joint (64634). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the services. You say that the services are medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says you do not meet the requirements for approval. 
 
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 items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found there is a frequency limitation: For each covered spinal region no more than two (2) 
radiofrequency sessions will be reimbursed per rolling 12 months. This request exceeds this limitation and therefore, 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 the services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve destruction by neurolytic agent, paravertebral facet joint nerve(s), with imaging guidance 
(fluoroscopy or CT); cervical or thoracic, single facet joint (64633) and each additional facet joint (64634).
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Group 3 standard power wheelchair with multiple 
power options (K0861) and additional items and accessories (codes E2361, E1028, E2377, E2313, E1007, 
E2311, E0955, E1012, K0040, E0953, E2620, and E2605). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a Group 3 standard power wheelchair and additional items and accessories. 
You say that the custom power wheelchair is medically needed and justified for the enrollee. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet Medicare criteria for a power wheelchair. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that a Group 3 PWC with multiple power options (such as 
code K0861) is covered if the criteria listed in the Medicare rules section of this letter 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 a Group 3 standard power wheelchair 
and additional items and accessories. Our reviewer says that the Group 3 power wheelchair with power options 
is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee is functionally non-ambulatory and 
cannot use a cane or walker for mobility. They cannot functionally propel a manual wheelchair due to upper 
extremity weakness and lack of endurance. The enrollee cannot operate a power scooter due to impaired sitting 
balance and inability to independent transfer. Our reviewer found that the enrollee requires a power wheelchair 
for mobility and accomplishing their daily activities. However, the clinical documentation is insufficient why a 
lower-level power wheelchair would not suffice for their needs versus a group 3 power wheelchair. There is 
inadequate clinical documentation regarding why the enrollee requires the group 3 power wheelchair base. Our 
physician reviewer also found that the enrollee does not have the complexity of seating needs to require this 
wheelchair base. 
 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 Group 3 standard power wheelchair and additional items and accessories have 
not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Group 3 standard power 
wheelchair with multiple power options (K0861) and additional items and accessories (codes E2361, E1028, 
E2377, E2313, E1007, E2311, E0955, E1012, K0040, E0953, E2620, and E2605).
Appeal type: Outpatient Therapies
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve 24 physical therapy (PT) visits. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the therapy services. You say that the PT visits are medically necessary for 
the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the criteria for 24 PT 
visits. 
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for medically necessary outpatient 
therapy. 
 
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 services. Our reviewer says 
that skilled services are not necessary to restore or maintain function or to prevent deterioration of the enrollee's 
condition. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has previously been treated with outpatient therapies and 
should be independent with a home exercise program.  There is no documentation of a recent injury or decline 
in function. The additional therapy services are not an appropriate duration and frequency for treatment of the 
enrollees medical condition and therefore are 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 therapy services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve 24 physical therapy (PT) visits.