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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the wireless capsule endoscopy. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the endoscopy. You say that the services are medically necessary The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the services are not 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 pre-approve the endoscopy. Our physician reviewer 
found the record indicates that the enrollee had undergone colonoscopy with polypectomy and upper 
endoscopy that demonstrated arteriovenous malformation that was treated. The record does not document the 
failure of push enteroscopy, nuclear imaging or radiological procedures to identify any other bleeding source. 
The record does not document that the previously identified sources of bleeding have all been treated without 
recurrence. The elements of the coverage criteria are not satisfied. 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 endoscopy have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve the wireless capsule endoscopy.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the Fungal Infection Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) 
Panel (87801, 87798, and 87481) provided on April 11, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the Fungal Infection PCR Panel. You say that the provided Fungal Infection PCR 
Panel was medically necessary.  The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the provided Fungal Infection 
PCR Panel was 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 Fungal Infection PCR Panel. Our 
reviewer says that the provided Fungal Infection PCR Panel was not medically necessary.  Our physician 
reviewer found the PCR testing for this enrollees right hallux toenail was not medically reasonable or 
necessary. It is well established in the medical documentation that this enrollee is suffering with thick painful 
toenails that demonstrate subungual debris. A right hallux toenail specimen was taken and sent for PCR testing 
to evaluate for pathogens. The longstanding standard of care for the evaluation of fungus in toenails is the 
performance of both potassium hydroxide (KOH) and fungal culture on a toenail specimen. These laboratory 
tests are inexpensive, sensitive, and specific. It is unclear as to why this enrollees toenail required PCR testing 
as compared to KOH and fungal culture. Therefore, the PCR testing of this enrollees right hallux toenail was 
not medically reasonable or necessary 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 Fungal Infection PCR Panel have not been met. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pay for the Fungal Infection Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) Panel (87801, 87798, 
and 87481) provided on April 11, 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 you would like reconsideration based on the records 
submitted. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you would like reconsideration based on the records 
submitted.  
 
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's 
medical problems are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. 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 therapy and/or 
occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. 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 IRF.  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 the enrollee's condition requires an IRF level of care. 
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 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, 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 this enrollee will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive 
rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF, but the services required can be provided at a lower level of 
care.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: 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 records do not show the enrollee requires a rehabilitation 
physician at least three times a week or the need for an intensive 
team for care. The Plan says services may be provided at 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. The medical 
records support 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. It 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 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 acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee had surgery and a stroke. You say that 
the enrollee cannot get the care they need at a skilled nursing facility. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says IRF care is not medically necessary, and the enrollee's needs can be met at 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 enrollees nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not 
require an acute rehabilitation hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. 
Although the enrollee continues to have a need for skilled therapy, the documentation does not support 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 long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the enrollee needs to be transferred to an 
LTACH to regain maximum/prior level of functioning and continue a multi-disciplinary approach to care. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the LTACH services are not medically necessary, and the enrollee's 
needs are being met in the current hospital facility. 
 
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 was admitted with acute kidney injury in the setting of sepsis secondary 
to urinary tract infection and colitis.  The record indicates that the enrollee has ongoing acute medical issues and still requires acute care services. The enrollee continues to receive acute care services, and these have not 
been denied. The medical record does not indicate that the enrollee requires services that she is not currently 
receiving but that would be available at the LTACH 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 long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services.
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 this 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 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 
block is experimental for knee pain. 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an expandable controller (E2377), harness (E2313), and 
connection (E2311). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve an expandable controller, harness, and connection. You say that these items 
are covered under Medicare rules. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says these items are not 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 an expandable controller, harness, and 
connection. Our reviewer says that the requested items are not considered medically reasonable and necessary 
in this case. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has use of the upper extremities and can operate and 
control the power options using the switches that are included in the basic wheelchair. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of an expandable controller, harness, and connection have not been met. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an expandable controller (E2377), harness 
(E2313), and connection (E2311).
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 will benefit from intensive rehabilitation 
and further medical management. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the records do not show the 
enrollee needs to be seen by a rehabilitation physician three times weekly for evaluation of functional and 
medical goals and progress.  The Plan says services may be provided at 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. The medical 
records support 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. It 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 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 Keytruda. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Keytruda. You say that the requested drug is necessary to treat the enrollee's 
diagnosis. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the drug requested does not meet the criteria required 
for approval. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare may pay for unlabeled uses for anti-cancer 
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 Keytruda. Our reviewer says that the 
requested drug does not meet the requirements necessary for approval. Our physician reviewer found that the 
current standard of care for the enrollee's diagnosis is chemotherapy with Cisplatin. The provided records do 
not document that the enrollee is not eligible for Cisplatin. There are no Medicare-approved citations that 
support the requested regimen. The requirements for coverage 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 Keytruda have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Keytruda.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Group 3 power wheelchair with multiple power 
options (tilt/recline, legrests) and accessories. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a Group 3 power wheelchair with multiple power options. You say that this 
is medically necessary for the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not have 
medical need for multiple power options. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that a Group 3 power wheelchair with multiple power 
options may be covered when certain criteria 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 power wheelchair with 
multiple power options. Our reviewer says that the requested Group 3 power wheelchair with multiple power 
options is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found rovided records do not support that the 
patient is high risk for skin breakdown and is unable to perform a functional weight shift (he is able to walk 
about 10 feet with a cane or walker), has a history of pressure ulcer(s) or has had skin flap surgery. Records do 
not document the patient performs bladder self-catheterization and is unable to transfer independently or that 
the patient has increased muscle tone or spasticity to meet criteria for the power tilt and/or recline and thus the 
multiple power option base. Provided records do not document the patient has a musculoskeletal condition or 
the presence of a cast or brace which prevents 90-degree flexion at the knee, or the patient has significant 
edema of the lower extremities that requires a power elevating leg rest. Therefore, the reviewer found that the 
requested Group 3 power wheelchair with multiple power options is not medically reasonable or necessary. As 
the requested wheelchair base does not meet Medicare coverage criteria, the requested accessories are not 
covered. 
 
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 power wheelchair with multiple power options have not been met. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Group 3 power wheelchair with multiple 
power options (tilt/recline, legrests) and accessories.
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 records do not show the enrollee needs to be seen by a 
rehabilitation physician three times weekly for evaluation of functional and medical goals and progress. The 
Plan say the enrollee does not need an intensive care team for 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. The medical 
records support 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. It 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 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.