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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve placement of a vagus nerve stimulator (VNS). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the VNS placement. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says records do not show that you have seizures or depression. 
 
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 VNS placement. Our reviewer says 
that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found while vagal nerve stimulation has shown promise in some studies when paired with 
rehabilitation after a stroke, provided medical records and review of the current peer-reviewed medical 
literature do not document that use of a vagal nerve stimulator has been shown in controlled studies in a 
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services approved journal to result in sustained long term health benefits in 
patients with hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction. 
 
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 VNS placement have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve placement of a vagus nerve stimulator (VNS).
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for the ThyGenX/ThyraMIR testing provided on July 5, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the testing. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that this testing was not 
medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that if there are no specific coverage rules for an item 
or service, then that item or service will be covered when it is medically necessary.  
 
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 pay for the testing. Our reviewer says that the 
requested services are considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer 
found that the molecular testing indicated that the cells from the right thyroid lobe were at low risk for 
malignancy. Even though the enrollee will likely require surgery on the left lobe of the thyroid due to presence 
of papillary carcinoma on that side, the result of the molecular testing will allow more limited surgery, with 
sparing of the right lobe. 
 
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 testing have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for the 
ThyGenX/ThyraMIR testing provided on July 5, 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 the Sprint peripheral nerve stimulator (PNS) (64555 x2, 
C1778). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the Sprint PNS. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the requested service is not medically necessary because this treatment is still being 
studied for use in this condition. 
 
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 Sprint PNS. Our reviewer says that 
the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found this is considered an experimental/investigational therapy. It is the subject of ongoing clinical 
trials.  
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 Sprint PNS have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve the Sprint peripheral nerve stimulator (PNS) (64555 x2, C1778).
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Freestyle Libre 2 continuous glucose monitor (CGM) 
sensor. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve these services. You say that you disagree with the denial. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the criteria for coverage are not 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 treat with 
insulin or have documented recurrent problematic hypoglycemia. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of these services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a Freestyle Libre 2 continuous glucose monitor (CGM) sensor.
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 you are appealing the denied CGM. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the Medicare criteria was not 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. Specifically, the request for information form from the enrollees 
physician indicates that the enrollee does not use insulin or have a history of problematic hypoglycemia. 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve foot orthotics.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve foot orthotics. You say that you doctor recommended orthotics to insert 
after your recovery from a surgery and physical therapy. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this item 
is not a covered benefit. 
 
Medicare rules state that supportive devices for the feet (such as orthotics) are only covered for patients with 
diabetic foot disease or for patients who wear a leg brace. The Plan follows these same rules.   
 
  Records show that you do not suffer from diabetic foot disease, and you do not wear a leg brace. Although 
orthotics may be appropriate for you, neither Medicare nor the Plan provides coverage of orthotics for your 
condition. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve foot orthotics.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the x-rays provided on August 8, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the dental services. You say that your provider needed additional x-rays and you 
should not have to pay. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the dental services were received from an 
out-of-network provider and are not covered by your supplemental benefits.  
 
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 record shows you received the requested dental services from an out-of-network provider. Though the Plan 
offers a dental benefit in excess of Medicare coverage, the requested items or services are not covered under 
this benefit when received from an out-of-network provider. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pay for the x-rays provided on August 8, 2023.
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 destruction by neurolytic agent, genicular nerve branches including imaging 
guidance. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says genicular 
nerve radiofrequency ablation is considered an experimental/investigational procedure at this time. It is the 
subject of ongoing clinical trials. 
 
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 destruction by neurolytic agent, 
genicular nerve branches including imaging guidance. Our reviewer says that the requested items/services are 
not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found genicular nerve 
ablation 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 destruction by neurolytic agent, genicular nerve branches including imaging 
guidance 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: 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 IRF admission to optimize 
mobility and strength. 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 complexity of the enrollees nursing, medical, and rehabilitation needs does not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay, with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The enrollee 
requires treatment by multiple therapies, including physical therapy and occupational therapy, but this can be 
provided in a lower level of care. The documentation shows that there is a reasonable expectation that this 
enrollee will be able to fully participate in and benefit from an intensive rehabilitation 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: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Apokyn injector pen. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the medication. You say that this is needed for the enrollee. 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 Apokyn injector pen.  
 
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 the services are medically necessary The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says based on the documentation provided, 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 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. 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 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the facet joint injection provided on May 5, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the injection. You say that the claim should be reprocessed. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the facet joint injection 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 pay for the injection. Our reviewer says that the 
facet joint injection is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee has received 
more than two levels of facet blocks which exceeds the utilization criteria. Also, there are no unique 
circumstances documented. Therefore, the procedure beyond two levels is 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 injection have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pay for the facet joint injection provided on May 5, 2023.
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 require oxygen, additional physical therapy and 
additional care to fully recover. You also say that you will not be able to obtain the same level of care at home 
as there is no one there to assist. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the skilled nursing facility 
services are being discontinued because continuation of SNF is not medically necessary and do not meet 
Medicare guidelines.  
 
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 you do not have daily skilled nursing needs that require the specialized skill, 
knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional nurse. You do not have daily skilled therapy needs that 
require the specialized skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional therapist. You also do 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 SNF care.
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 denial will jeopardize the enrollee's life, health, and 
ability to regain function. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the enrollee does not meet the 
criteria 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 that 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 does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational 
therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. 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: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the ambulance response and treatment with no transport 
provided on June 11, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the ambulance response and treatment with no transport. You say that you were 
at an event and at 3 AM you fell face first and suffered a contusion with concern for a concussion. You also say 
that the emergency medical service was waiting for you in the parking lot and you were treated so there was no 
need to go to the emergency room. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says these services are not a 
covered benefit.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare does not pay for ambulance services when 
there is no transport.  
 
The ambulance company did not provide transport services on June 11, 2023. The ambulance benefit is a 
transportation benefit. When there is no transport, neither Medicare nor the Plan pays for the services provided. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the ambulance response and treatment with no 
transport provided on June 11, 2023.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for the acute inpatient hospital care provided from September 29, 2022, to 
October 1, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the acute inpatient hospital care. You say that you are appealing the denial with 
supporting documentation. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that these services were not authorized. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that inpatient hospital care is covered when the doctor 
expects the patient to need hospital care that crosses at least two midnights. In rare and unusual cases, 
consideration may be given to inpatient hospital care when the hospital stay does not cross two midnights or 
more. 
 
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 pay for the acute inpatient hospital care. Our 
reviewer says that the documentation supports that the criteria for inpatient payment are met in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee was treated with antibiotics and her condition stabilized and improved. 
The record showed that at the time of inpatient admission it was reasonable for the admitting physician to 
expect that the enrollee's necessary hospital care would span two midnights with supporting documentation of 
the enrollees history, comorbidities, signs and symptoms, current medical needs, and risk of an adverse event. 
 
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 acute inpatient hospital care have been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan has to pay for the acute inpatient hospital care provided from September 29, 2022, to October 1, 2022.  
 
If the Plan does not agree with our decision, they can ask us to open a case again. We only open a case again 
if we believe there was a mistake or if there is new information to review. The Plan has to show us the mistake 
and/or send us the new information. This does not happen often. If we decide to open the case again, we will 
send you a letter.