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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the CardioMEMS heart failure (HF) System (33289). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the system. You say that you are appealing with supporting records. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says this procedure is not supported by research and is not covered. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that items and services that are not medically 
necessary are not covered.  
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the system. Our reviewer says that the 
requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found there remains a dearth of randomized, blinded clinical studies examining long-term clinical 
outcomes establishing the value of CardioMEMS in patient management. As a result, at this time the 
CardioMEMS system would not be considered medically appropriate and necessary in this enrollees 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 the system have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve the CardioMEMS heart failure (HF) System (33289).
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the additional routine transportation trips. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the additional routine transportation trips. You say that you are scheduled to 
see your doctor weekly and needs transportation. You say you are in a wheelchair and needs six additional 
rides for the remainder of the year. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested service exceeds 
the benefit limit. 
  
Medicare does not cover transport in a vehicle that is not an ambulance. However, the Plan offers a 
transportation benefit that exceeds Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plans coverage rules apply in this 
case. The Plan covers a maximum of 100 trips per year.  
 
We looked at your request, the records in the case file, and the rules. Based on this information, we decided 
that you have exhausted the Plan maximum benefit for coverage of routine transportation. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the additional routine transportation trips.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a home ventilator system. 
 
  You asked the Plan to pre-approve a home ventilator system. You say that the enrollee suffers from COPD and 
chronic respiratory failure. You say that the enrollee requires non-invasive positive pressure ventilator to 
decrease the work of breathing, decreased hypercapnia, and increased oxygenation.  The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says a home ventilator is not medically necessary for this patient because their needs can be 
met with an alternative device such as a BiPAP device with average volume-assured pressure support 
(AVAPS).  
 
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. Claims for ventilators used to provide CPAP or bi-level CPAP therapy will be denied as 
not reasonable and 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 home ventilator system. Our reviewer 
says that a home ventilator system is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee 
has COPD and chronic respiratory failure, however there is no documented trial or failure of a BiPAP. Also, 
there is no supportive evidence that all therapies with a BiPAP have failed. Additionally, the documentation 
does not support the need for a home ventilator. 
 
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 home ventilator system have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve a home ventilator system.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a CxBladder Monitor test (0013M) provided on June 6, 
2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for a CxBladder Monitor test. You say that the service at issue was a medical 
necessity for the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the service at issue is not a covered 
benefit. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that non-coverage is reaffirmed for CPT codes 
0012M and 0013M for CxBladder. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of a 
CxBladder Monitor test have not been met.  
 
 
 Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a CxBladder Monitor test (0013M) provided on 
June 6, 2023.
Appeal type: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for air ambulance services provided on March 6, 2022. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for the services. You say that the transport method was medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says there was no clear barrier to transport to the closest appropriate facility 
or use of ground transportation. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for air ambulance services only if your 
medical condition is such that transportation by ground ambulance is not appropriate.  
 
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 services. Our physician reviewer found 
the Health Plans denial should be upheld. The enrollee presented to the emergency department with shortness 
of breath. The enrollee was found to have tachycardia and heart failure, for which medications were 
initiated. No beds were available locally, making transfer medically necessary and reasonable. However, it is 
unclear why the particular receiving hospital was chosen. There appear to have been closer facilities. There is 
no documentation that all closer facilities were unable to accommodate the enrollee. As such, the transport is 
not coverable. 
 
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 services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pay for air ambulance services provided on March 6, 2022.
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 you are requesting an expedited appeal for the 
denial of a SNF admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request is not medically necessary. 
 
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 meet severity of illness or intensity of service criteria for an 
inpatient basis in a skilled nursing facility setting. The enrollee does not have daily skilled nursing needs that 
require the specialized skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional nurse. The enrollee does not 
have daily skilled therapy needs that require the specialized skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled 
professional therapist. The enrollee does 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 skilled nursing facility (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 you are requesting reconsideration for the denial of 
an IRF admission. You say you are motivated. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says your request does 
not meet the definition of medical necessity.  
 
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. 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.  
 
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 needs to have at least 15 hours a week of 
physical and occupational therapy to regain their strength for daily living. The Plan denied your request. The 
Plan says admission to the IRF is not reasonable and necessary, as the enrollee's condition does not meet the 
Medicare rules.  
 
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 hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. 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.  
 
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 Yervoy and Opdivo. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the drugs. You say that the enrollee needs the injections to help prevent 
colon cancer. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says Yervoy and Opdivo are not medically necessary. 
 
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 the drugs. Our reviewer says that 
Yervoy and Opdivo are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the requested use of 
Yervoy and Opdivo are not FDA-approved. Yervoy and Opdivo are also not supported by one of the major 
drug compendia or by clinical research.  
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 drugs have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Yervoy and Opdivo.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve laminotomy with decompression of the nerve root at 
L4-5 (63030).  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve this service. You say that you are requesting a reconsideration of the Plan's 
denial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested service 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 this service. Our reviewer says that the 
requested service is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer 
found that the enrollee was being treated for right foot drop and spinal stenosis of the lumbar region without 
neurogenic claudication. He presented with right leg pain that started suddenly four weeks ago. At onset, he 
had lateral leg pain to the knee and now it does radiate down to the foot.  The pain is constant and dysesthetic in the right leg. The exam reveals intact strength and sensation. The gait is 
normal. However, detailed documentation regarding a trial and failure of recent, reasonable, comprehensive, 
less invasive conservative care measures is not evident. Additionally, the enrollee notes a right foot drop; 
however, this is not corroborated on the objective exam. His neurological examination is intact. There are 
limited large-scale, long-term references showing the safety and efficacy of the requested surgery in this 
clinical setting. There is no compelling rationale presented or extenuating circumstances noted to support the 
medical necessity of this request as an exception. Therefore, the requested laminotomy with decompression of 
the nerve root at L4-5 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 this service have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve laminotomy with decompression of the nerve root at L4-5 (63030).
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 intensive therapy to go back to an 
independent state. You say your provider has verified you have full capability to recover with intensive 
therapy. 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 your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not require an 
acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. 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.  
 
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 needs an inpatient rehabilitation course 
of treatment and is necessary to help return to  dally activities and regain independence. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the enrollee's condition does not meet all the requirements for inpatient rehabilitation 
admission. 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 is requiring ongoing medical care to 
achieve a safe and sustainable discharge. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the records do not show 
the enrollee is able to take part in three hours of therapy a day at least five days a week or 15 hours per week: 
you are wheelchair bound. The Plan says the enrollee is unable to walk, unable to perform any of your normal 
daily activities, dependent for feeding, and fatigue easily and require frequent rest break. 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the radiofrequency ablation of the sacroiliac joint. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the radiofrequency ablation. You say that the enrollee is in desperate need 
for the radiofrequency ablation of the sacroiliac joint. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
radiofrequency ablation 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 radiofrequency ablation. Our 
reviewer says that the radiofrequency ablation is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that 
the radiofrequency ablation is considered experimental and investigational therapy. Therefore, the request 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 radiofrequency ablation have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve the radiofrequency ablation of the sacroiliac joint.