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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve destruction by neurolytic agent, genicular nerve 
branches including imaging guidance (64624). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the genicular nerve ablation. You say that this is medically necessary as the 
enrollee has tried and failed conservative treatment options. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this is 
experimental and therefore is not covered. 
 
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 genicular nerve ablation. Our 
reviewer says that the requested genicular nerve ablation is not considered medically reasonable and necessary 
in this case. Our physician reviewer found genicular nerve ablation is experimental for knee pain. Therefore, 
the reviewer found that the requested genicular nerve ablation is not medically reasonable or 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 genicular nerve ablation have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve destruction by neurolytic agent, genicular nerve branches including imaging 
guidance (64624).
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Synvisc. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve Synvisc. 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 Synvisc. Our reviewer says that the 
services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the documentation does not outline 
contraindications or reasons these medications were not considered or that the plan's additional required drugs 
would likely be less effective and/or likely have adverse effects for the enrollee. Without the support of the 
documentation, Synvisc is not approved as step criteria have not been met. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Synvisc have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Synvisc.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Eliquis. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the medication. You say that this is necessary for the enrollee's condition. 
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 Eliquis.   
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 acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you have very bad back pain and you are in need of 
the inpatient rehabilitation facility services. You are requesting that the authorization be approved. 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. The enrollee 
was admitted for lumbar spine surgery. 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: 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 exceeds the criteria for 
admission to an LTACH, and you would like reconsideration based on the records submitted. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the records do not show that it is medically necessary to be in an LTACH in place 
of an acute care hospital.  
 
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 the enrollee does not require services at the LTACH that are not already 
available at the current facility. There are no services at the LTACH that the enrollee requires that are not already available and covered at the current facility. Transfer to the LTACH is not medically necessary as the 
enrollee is not yet stable for transfer and as it would not be clinically advantageous.  
 
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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for the eye exams provided from October 5, 2022, to April 12, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the eye exams. You say that you have been getting these eye injections for a long 
time and have never been charged this in the past. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that these 
services are not covered.  
 
Medicare rules say that a contract provider is an agent of the plan. Services and referrals given by a contract 
provider are considered approved by the plan unless notice is provided that the services will not be covered. 
The Plan follows these rules. 
 
You were referred for the eye exams by a contract provider. The file does not show that the Plan provided 
notice that the eye exams would not be covered. Under Medicare rules, this means the eye exams are 
considered approved by the Plan and you must be held harmless. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay 
for the eye exams provided from October 5, 2022, to April 12, 2023.  
 
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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an intraosseous basivertebral nerve (BVN) back 
procedure. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a BVN procedure. You say that the enrollee would have pain relief from 
this procedure. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the medical criteria for this procedure has 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 a BVN procedure. Our reviewer says 
that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found documentation is lacking regarding reasonably detailed and/or evidenced findings 
supportive of the spinal vertebral bodies as being the overwhelming primary generators of the enrollees 
chronic persistent pain. Documentation does not support actual formal surgical ablation of pre-designated 
basivertebral nerves as being medically necessary and/or reasonable 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 a BVN procedure have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve an intraosseous basivertebral nerve (BVN) back procedure.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the lab services (81003) provided on May 15, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the billed service 
cannot be verified. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that the physician must clearly document, in the 
medical record, his or her intent that the test be performed. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The documentation submitted does not contain a valid physician 
order or lab requisition for the specific testing provided in this case. 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 pay for the lab services (81003) provided on May 15, 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 these service will help the enrollee to recover 
quicker and to get them home as soon as possible. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the required 
services can be provided in an alternate setting.  
 
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 can be provided 
in a lower level of care and does not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach 
to rehabilitation care. The enrollee requires treatment by multiple therapies. 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: 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 say that these services are medically necessary. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says these services are 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 the complexity of the enrollees nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not 
require an acute rehabilitation hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation 
care. The enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies. There is not a reasonable expectation that 
the enrollee will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy program 
provided in an inpatient rehabilitation facility. The enrollee continues to have a need for skilled therapy with 
ongoing safety concerns and a potential for functional improvement; however, the documentation doesnt 
support that they would meet criteria for admission to an acute inpatient rehabilitation facility.  The enrollee 
can receive further services 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: 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. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an 
LTACH admission 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 the enrollee is stable and only requires short-term additional acute care services 
at the current facility until they are more stable. The enrollee does not require services at the LTACH that are 
not already available at the current facility. 
 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: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain; 
without contrast material (70553) to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve an MRI of the brain. You say that you disagree with the denial. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee must receive care from a network provider and/or facility. The 
requested facility is not in network with the plan. 
 
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 pre-approve care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving 
emergencies, out of area urgent care and care that cannot be provided by network providers. 
 
 The requested provider in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan has network providers 
available who can provide the items/services at issue in this appeal. We found no exception that would require 
the Plan to pre-approve these items/services. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve 
a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain; without contrast material (70553) to be provided by an out-
of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a continuous glucose monitor (CGM). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the CGM. You say that the items should be covered as the enrollee 
disagrees with the denial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the items denied correctly as the 
enrollee does not meet the clinical requirements to be approved. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that therapeutic CGMs may be considered reasonable and 
necessary for enrollees with diabetes who meet the criteria referenced 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 the CGM. Our physician reviewer 
found that the record does not indicate the enrollee is on insulin or has a history of problematic hypoglycemia. 
 
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 CGM have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve a 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 enrollee requires intensive inpatient rehabilitation 
with daily physician management, continuous specialized rehabilitation nursing, and intensive therapies to 
optimize mobility and strengthening while ensuring the restoration of functional status for a safe and 
sustainable discharge. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says admission to an IRF 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 complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical, and rehabilitation needs can be 
provided in a lower level of care and does 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 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: 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 being discharged from the hospital and 
is in immediate need of an inpatient rehabilitation facility. They were seriously injured in a car wreck, 
including a broken pelvis, hip, neck, and arm. 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 enrollee does not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary 
approach to rehabilitation care. The enrollees medical problems are stable and there are no complex nursing or 
rehabilitation needs. 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.