Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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. You say that the services are medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the SNF services you are requesting do not meet the requirements for 
approval. 
 
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 require skilled nursing or skilled therapy services that require 
the specialized skill, knowledge, and judgement of a skilled professional nurse or therapist. The enrollee does 
not require skilled services on a daily basis. The enrollee does not require skilled services 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 skilled nursing facility (SNF) care.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a CT scan of the heart. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a CT scan of the heart. You say that you have a family history of significant 
heart disease.  The Plan denied your request. The Plan says a CT scan of the heart is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that CT scans are covered only when they are 
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 a CT scan of the heart. Our reviewer 
says that a CT scan of the heart is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that there is 
insufficient support in the peer-reviewed literature demonstrating a significant benefit of CT imaging of the 
heart with quantitative evaluation of coronary calcium in guiding optimal management.  Therefore, the CT 
imaging of the heart without contrast material with quantitative evaluation of coronary calcium is considered 
experimental and investigational for the evaluation and management of your medical condition. 
 
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 CT scan of the heart have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve a CT scan of the heart.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Taltz. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the medication. You say that you disagree with the denial. 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 Taltz.   
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 are unsafe to return home before inpatient 
rehabilitation due to your medical conditions. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you do not meet the 
criteria for admission to an IRF. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found that you do not require treatment by multiple therapies. While the medical record 
supports a need for physical or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive rehabilitation 
services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different level of care. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an expandable controller (E2377), harness (E2313), seat 
belt (E0978), calf pad (E0995), joystick mount hardware (K0108), elbow blocks (K0108), and footplate pad 
(K0108). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve an expandable controller, harness, seat belt, calf pad, joystick mount 
hardware, elbow blocks, and footplate pad. You say that the services are necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says medical necessity has not been established. Therefore, coverage criteria have 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 an expandable controller, harness, seat 
belt, calf pad, joystick mount hardware, elbow blocks, and footplate pad. Our reviewer says that the services 
are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found you has adequate upper body strength to manage 
standard power drives. Per the coverage criteria the footplate pad is not medically necessary and the joystick 
mount, calf pads and seat belt are included wheelchair provided therefore they are not ordered separately. 
 
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, seat belt, calf pad, joystick mount hardware, 
elbow blocks, and footplate pad have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-
approve an expandable controller (E2377), harness (E2313), seat belt (E0978), calf pad (E0995), joystick 
mount hardware (K0108), elbow blocks (K0108), and footplate pad (K0108).
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a CTA scan. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a CTA scan. You say that the enrollee has ongoing chest pain. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says a CTA scan is not medically necessary  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that CT scans are covered only when they are 
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 a CTA scan. Our reviewer says that a 
CTA scan is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee had a normal stress test in 
2021. Therefore, the coronary CTA is not medically reasonable and necessary in the enrollee's clinical 
management. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of a CTA scan have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a CTA scan.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the Tempus xF liquid biopsy (81455) provided on February 
17, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the Tempus xF liquid biopsy. You say that this testing was medically necessary.  
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this test is not FDA approved. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that Medicare nationally covers NGS testing, when 
the test is FDA approved or has clearance as a companion in vitro diagnostic. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Research shows that the Tempus xF liquid biopsy is not FDA 
approved nor does it have clearance as a companion in vitro diagnostic. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the Tempus xF liquid biopsy have not been met. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pay for the Tempus xF liquid biopsy (81455) provided on February 17, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the office visit (procedure code 99214) rendered on 
December 19, 2022.   
 You asked the Plan to pay for the office visit. You say that this office visit should be paid for. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the records do not support the services billed. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate CPT code. 
 
In this case, the CPT Code Manual definition of code 99214 is an office or other outpatient visit for the 
evaluation and management of an established patient, which requires a medically appropriate history and/or 
examination and moderate level of medical decision making. When using time for code selection, 30-39 
minutes of total time is spent on the date of the encounter.  
 
We asked our coder 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 office visit. Our reviewer says that the billing of code 
99214 is not supported. Our reviewer found that the medical record includes an evaluation and management 
service documenting the evaluation of bilateral wrist pain and a therapeutic injection. Although the evaluation 
and management service was reported with modifier 25 significant, separately identifiable evaluation and 
management service by the same physician or other qualified health care professional on the same day of the 
procedure or other service, documentation does not support the modifier. The evaluation and management 
service does not support a significant service. 
 
We looked at this coder's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the office visit have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pay for the office visit (procedure code 99214) rendered on December 19, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Vertiflex procedure. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the procedure. You say that the procedure is necessary for the enrollee's 
health and well-being.  The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the Vertiflex procedure is not medically 
necessary.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that items and services that are not medically 
necessary are not covered.  
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the procedure. Our reviewer says that 
the Vertiflex procedure is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee is not 
enrolled in a clinical trial and the device is considered investigational and is the subject of congoing 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 procedure have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve the Vertiflex procedure.
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 the enrollee does not meet the criteria for admission to an IRF. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies. While the medical 
record supports a need for physical or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive 
rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different level of care. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a replacement prosthesis. 
 
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 services are not covered. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that replacement durable medical equipment is 
covered in the case of irreparable damage or when the equipment as exceeded the reasonable lifetime period of 
five years. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The file shows that the enrollee's current prosthesis is not irreparably damaged and was issued on December 5, 2022; therefore, it is not more than five years old. 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 replacement prosthesis.
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 needed to optimize the enrollee's 
physical function. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 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 
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 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: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Prolia. 
 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 step therapy requirement is not 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 these services. Our reviewer says that 
the services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has not tried and failed the 
Plan's required drug, an injectable bisphosphonate. The records do not show that the required drug would be 
contraindicated or less effective; therefore, Prolia is not reasonable or 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 these services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve Prolia.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the genicular nerve block. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the genicular nerve block. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
genicular nerve block is not medically necessary.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that items and services that are not medically 
necessary are not covered.  
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the genicular nerve block. Our reviewer 
says that the genicular nerve block is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the genicular 
nerve block is considered experimental and investigational and 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 genicular nerve block have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve the genicular nerve block.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a ventilator. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a ventilator. 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. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that ventilators may be covered when they are medically 
necessary for patients who have neuromuscular disease, thoracic restrictive diseases, and chronic respiratory 
failure due to COPD. 
 
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 ventilator. Our reviewer says that the 
services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found provided records document that the home ventilator is being requested for use in a volume assured pressure support (IVAPS) mode which is a modality 
that could be provided by a bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) device with average volume assured 
pressure support (AVAPS) and a back-up rate. Provided records do not document trial and failure of a BiPAP 
device with AVAPS and a back-up rate.  
 
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 ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a ventilator.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the bone marrow aspirate (20939). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the bone marrow aspirate (20939). You say that  the surgery is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the bone marrow aspirate is not medically necessary. 
The Plan says the clinical value and effectiveness of bone marrow aspirate in the setting of spinal fusion 
surgery have not been demonstrated in the peer-reviewed literature. 
 
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 bone marrow aspirate (20939). Our 
reviewer says that the surgery is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found bone marrow aspirate is experimental in spine surgery. 
 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 bone marrow aspirate (20939) have not been met. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the bone marrow aspirate (20939).