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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the office visit, the refraction, and the ophthalmological 
services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the vision services. You say that the enrollee is established with the 
requested out-of-network provider. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the provider is out-of-network. 
 
Medicare generally does not cover routine vision and eyewear services. However, the Plan offers a routine 
vision and eyewear benefit that exceeds Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plan's coverage rules apply in 
this case. The Plan covers these services when received by a network provider. 
 
We looked at the file and the Plan's rules. Specifically, the provider is out-of-network. Based on this 
information, we decided that the Plan's rules for coverage of the vision services have not been met. Therefore, 
we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the office visit, the refraction, and the ophthalmological 
services.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the drug testing (G0483) provided May 9, 2023. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for the drug testing. You say that the claim should be paid. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the service is not supported by the records. 
 
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 G0483 is drug test(s), definitive, utilizing (1) drug 
identification methods able to identify individual drugs and distinguish between structural isomers (but not 
necessarily stereoisomers), including, but not limited to gc/ms (any type, single or tandem) and lc/ms (any type, 
single or tandem and excluding immunoassays (e.g., ia, eia, elisa, emit, fpia) and enzymatic methods (e.g., 
alcohol dehydrogenase)), (2) stable isotope or other universally recognized internal standards in all samples 
(e.g., to control for matrix effects, interferences and variations in signal strength), and (3) method or drug-
specific calibration and matrix-matched quality control material (e.g., to control for instrument variations and 
mass spectral drift); qualitative or quantitative, all sources, includes specimen validity testing, per day; 22 or 
more drug class(es), including metabolite(s) if performed. 
 
We find that CPT code G0483 is not supported in the medical record. Review of the medical records submitted 
include results and a signed physicians order; however, the records did not include any tests marked on the 
order. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the drug testing have not been 
met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the drug testing (G0483) provided May 9, 
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 the enrollee meets the full criteria for an an inpatient 
rehabilitation stay. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says criteria for admission to the acute inpatient 
rehabilitation setting have not been met.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do 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 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 doesnt 
support that they 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 rehabilitation services 15 hours 
a week, under the supervision of a physician with at least three visits weekly to regain or maintain their 
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.
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 to an IRF is medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says based upon Medicare guidelines, IRF care is not considered medically 
reasonable or 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 the enrollees nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do 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 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 doesnt 
support that they 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 rehabilitation services 15 hours 
a week, under the supervision of a physician with at least three visits weekly to regain or maintain their 
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.
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 in consideration of the enrollee's prior medical 
history, active comorbidities, and risk for medial instability while increasing activity, the IRF setting is the 
most appropriate to reach the desired outcomes. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says admission to an 
IRF 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 In this case, the complexity of the enrollees 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 doesnt 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.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Proton Beam Radiation Therapy (PBRT). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve PBRT. You say that PBRT is a Medicare-covered service. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says PBRT is not medically necessary as it is not the standard of care for prostate 
cancer. PBRT for the primary treatment of prostate cancer should only be performed within the context of a 
clinical trial. 
 
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 PBRT. Our reviewer says that the 
requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found To date, there are no compelling data to suggest that proton therapy is superior to or more 
beneficial than intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)/image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT). The generally accepted standard of care for prostate cancer is to only offer proton beam therapy on clinical trials, 
and to not routinely offer it to patients. While National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines 
consider proton therapy a reasonable alternative, they do not describe it as being necessary in lieu of non-
proton-based treatment and are quite explicit in that there is no evidence of its superiority. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of PBRT have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pre-approve Proton Beam Radiation Therapy (PBRT).
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 an IRF admission is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the requirements for an IRF admission. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found in this case, the complexity of the enrollees 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 doesnt support that she 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 her 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.
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Cimzia (certolizumab). 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve Cimzia (certolizumab). You say that the requested drug is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the step therapy 
requirements for the requested drug to be approved. 
 
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 Cimzia (certolizumab). Our reviewer 
says that the enrollee does not meet the criteria necessary for the requested drug to be approved. Our physician 
reviewer found the Plan requires a trial of Enbrel, Humira, Kevzara, Rinvoq, Xeljanz or Xeljanz XR before 
they will approve the requested drug. The documentation submitted does not show the enrollee has tried and 
failed the Plan's preferred drugs. Based on the medical records provided and the Medicare-approved major drug 
compendia there is no indication that the Plan's required drugs would likely be less effective or have adverse 
effects for the enrollee in this case. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Cimzia (certolizumab) have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve Cimzia (certolizumab).
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a positron emission tomography (PET) scan.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the PET scan. You say that the PET scan is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the criteria for coverage have not been met. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules state that a PET scan for dementia and neurodegenerative 
diseases are only covered under certain conditions. 
 
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 PET scan. Our reviewer says that 
the service is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee is only noted to have 
"memory problems". There was no indication that the enrollee met diagnostic criteria for either, let alone both 
AD and FTD. Without this first requirement for coverage having been satisfied, it cannot be said that the 
requested service meets Medicare criteria for coverage. 
 
 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 PET scan have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a positron emission tomography (PET) scan.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Iovera procedure. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Iovera procedure. You say that the enrollee would benefit from procedure 
prior to upcoming knee surgery. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 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 Iovera procedure. Our reviewer says 
that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the requested procedure considered experimental or investigational. 
 
 We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Iovera procedure have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve Iovera procedure.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve implantation of a carotid sinus baroreflex system for 
heart failure (Barostim). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Barostim. You say that the enrollee suffers from shortness of breath and 
fatigue. He has failed medical therapy and requires this device. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
enrollee has a contraindication to this device, and the Barostim device is unproven. 
 
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 Barostim. Our reviewer says that the 
requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found at issue is whether the requested authorization for implantation of a Barostim Neo system is 
medically necessary. Baroreflex stimulation devices have been considered potential alternative treatments for resistant hypertension and heart failure. The Barostim Neo system is an electronic pulse generator implanted 
underneath the clavicle with a lead tunneled under the skin to the carotid sinus in the neck. The pulse generator 
delivers electrical impulses, analogous to a cardiac pacemaker, to the baroreceptors of one of the carotid 
arteries. In August 2019, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the system for use in patients 
with refractory heart failure who remain symptomatic despite treatment with guideline-directed medical 
therapy, are New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class III, have an ejection fraction less than 35%, and are 
not candidates for bi-ventricular pacing. This was based on a clinical study demonstrating improvement in 
normal daily activities, distance walked, quality of life, and improved cardiac levels biomarker levels. There 
remains an absence of randomized, blinded clinical studies examining long-term clinical outcomes establishing 
the value of Barostim Neo in patient management. As a result, at this time the Barostim Neo system would not 
be considered medically reasonable and necessary in this patient'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 Barostim have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve implantation of a carotid sinus baroreflex system for heart failure (Barostim).
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 necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says based on the documentation provided, coverage criteria have not been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found in this case, the complexity of the enrollees 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 doesnt 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.