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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Vivigen allograft. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a Vivigen allograft. You say that you have successfully use Vivigen 
allograft bone in several hundred cervical lumbar fusion surgeries over the past several years. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says there is limited published, large-scale, long-term peer-reviewed literature that 
shows this requested allograft to be an effective and/or safe treatment for the noted pathology. 
 
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 Vivigen allograft. Our reviewer says 
that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found there is no compelling rationale presented or extenuating circumstances noted to 
support the medical necessity of this request as an exception. Therefore, the requested Vivigen allograft 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 a Vivigen allograft have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a Vivigen allograft.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Volara system-high frequency oscillation lung 
expansion device (E1399).  
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a Volara system. 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 a Volara system. Our reviewer says that 
the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found secretion mobility is very paramount with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), however, there 
is no documented trial or failure of standard therapy prior to escalation to VOLARA system. Hence, trial of 
standard therapy is warranted prior to escalation. Therefore, no indication for VOLARA system at this time 
given documentation provided. 
 
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 Volara system have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a Volara system-high frequency oscillation lung expansion device (E1399).
Appeal type: Other
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an epidural steroid injection (62323). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve an epidural steroid injection. 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 follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that an epidural steroid injection (ESI) will be considered 
medically reasonable and necessary when certain requirements 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 an epidural steroid injection. Our 
reviewer says that the services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the coverage criteria 
have not been met for an epidural steroid injection. The documentation does not reveal 50% sustained relief 
from the most recent injection for at least 3 months. The requested injection is not medically necessary. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of an epidural steroid injection have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve an epidural steroid injection (62323).
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the psychotherapy services provided on July 20, 2023, by an 
OON provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the psychotherapy services. You say that the provider is in-network, and these 
services were medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says these services were not 
authorized. 
 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 pay for care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving emergencies, 
out of area urgent care and pre-approved care. 
 
The requested provider in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan had network providers 
available who could have provided the items/services at issue in this appeal. The Plan did not pre-approve the 
items/services at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay for these items/services. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the psychotherapy services provided on July 20, 
2023, by an OON provider.
Appeal type: Outpatient Therapies
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the physical therapy services billed with codes 97530 and 
97112 for April 14, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for these services. You say that you disagree with the denial. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says two of the billed diagnosis codes cannot be reported together. 
 The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that providers must comply with ICD-10-CM coding 
guidelines. One such guideline indicates that certain diagnosis codes have an Excludes1 note which lists other 
diagnosis codes with which they cannot be reported.  
 
In this case, we have confirmed that R26.81 has an Excludes1 note in relation to R26.2. This means that the 
two diagnosis codes cannot be reported together. Based on this information, we decided that the Medicare 
billing rules for these services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for 
the physical therapy services billed with codes 97530 and 97112 for April 14, 2023.
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 cannot be managed at a 
lower level of care and risks further deterioration if not approved for LTACH. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the Medicare criteria for LTACH services. 
 
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 exacerbation of congestive heart failure and chronic 
obstructive pulmonary disease and requires a procedure. 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 he is not currently receiving but that would be available at the LTACH facility. The elements of 
the coverage rules are not satisfied. The requested service cannot be recommended. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the 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: 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 cannot be managed at a 
lower level of care and risks further deterioration if not approved for LTACH. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the Medicare criteria for LTACH services. 
 
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 respiratory failure and has had a complicated 
hospital course. The record indicates that the enrollee has ongoing acute medical issue 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. The elements of the coverage rules are not satisfied. The requested 
service cannot be recommended. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the 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: 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 you are requesting reconsideration of the 
denied authorization. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the coverage criteria have not been met. 
 
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 does not require services at the LTACH that are not available at the acute 
care hospital. There are no services available at the LTACH that the enrollee requires that are not available at 
the health care setting being offered by the health plan. Given there are offered alternatives, the LTACH 
admission is not medically necessary. We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the 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: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Xgeva (J0897). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a medication. You say that the requested drug is medically necessary in 
treating hypercalcemia. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the use of this drug is not reasonable and 
necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare may pay for unlabeled uses for FDA-
approved drugs if they are medically accepted as safe and effective or appropriate for the particular use.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve a medication. Our reviewer says that 
the service is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the review indicates that the accepted use 
of this drug for the given condition requires an albumin-corrected calcium of greater than 12.5 milligram 
(mg)/deciliter (dL). However, the information we were given indicates that the current corrected calcium is 
11.5 mg/dL The requested use of Xgeva is not FDA approved for the enrollees diagnosis. Its use is not 
supported by one of the major drug compendia or by clinical research that appears in a Centers for Medicare & 
Medicaid Services (CMS) approved medical journal. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of a medication have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve Xgeva (J0897).
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 is not ready to be discharged home, and 
it would be considered an unsafe discharge for this enrollee at this time. The Plan denied your request. The 
Plan says an IRF admission is not medically necessary, but skilled therapies as an outpatient, with home 
healthcare, or at a skilled nursing facility (SNF) may be approved upon request.  
 
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 to the hospital on January 2, 2024, from an assisted living facility after rolling out of bed and 
hitting his head. He has experienced deconditioning and decline in function, but no acute neurological change 
or a significant change in his baseline medical conditions. The enrollee does not require treatment by multiple 
therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy 
program at least three hours a day and five days a week, or 15 hours over seven consecutive days. Occupational 
therapy documentation dated January 10, 2024, indicated that the enrollee is modified independent with bed 
mobility and requiring minimum to moderate assistance with transfers. He can ambulate at least 25 feet with 
minimum to moderate assistance with the assistance of a walker. He requires minimum assistance with 
grooming and maximum assistance with toileting. The enrollee has had a decline from his baseline level of 
function and may benefit from occupational and physical therapies. However, he does not require the intensity 
of therapies provided on acute inpatient rehabilitation. Therefore, the acute inpatient rehabilitation admission is 
not medically necessary.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you need rehabilitation services before returning 
home. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an IRF admission is not medically necessary, but skilled 
therapies at a skilled nursing facility may be approved upon request.  
 
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 were admitted for 
surgical repair of a hip fracture after a fall. Medical problems are stable. There are no complex nursing or 
rehabilitation needs. 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: 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 require IRF services to regain your prior level of 
functioning and independence. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request 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 the complexity of your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not require an 
acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. You were admitted for 
osteomyelitis and epidural abscess. Medical problems are stable. There are no complex nursing or 
rehabilitation needs. 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: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a computed tomography (CT), heart, without contrast 
material, with quantitative evaluation of coronary calcium (75571). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve quantitative calcium scoring. You say that the service is necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the requested service is not covered. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that quantitative calcium scoring (CPT code 0144T 
for dates of service prior to 01/01/2010, and CPT 75571 on or after 01/01/2010) is not a covered service and 
will be denied as not medically necessary. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of quantitative calcium scoring have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve a computed tomography (CT), heart, without contrast material, with quantitative evaluation of 
coronary calcium (75571).
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 needs IRF services. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet Medicare 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 complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not 
require an acute rehab 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, at an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. The enrollee continues to have a need for skilled 
therapy with ongoing safety concerns and a potential for functional improvement however, the documentation 
does not support that he would meet criteria for admission to an acute inpatient rehabilitation facility.  There is 
no indication that the enrollee would require skilled rehabilitation in an IRF, participating in rehab services 15 
hours a week, under the supervision of a physician with at least 3 visits weekly to regain or maintain his 
functional status.  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.