Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Zilretta. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve Zilretta. You say that the enrollee would like reconsideration based on the 
records submitted. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the step therapy requirements have not been 
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 Zilretta. Our reviewer says that Zilretta 
is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee has osteoarthritis of the knee, and 
the requested medication is a new start. However, there is no indication that the enrollee has tried and failed the 
Plan's step one alternative. Also, there is no indication that the enrollee has a contraindication, to, or would 
have an adverse effect from the Plan's preferred step one alternative. Therefore, the elements of coverage 
criteria have not been satisfied. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Zilretta have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pre-approve Zilretta.
Appeal type: ER
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for emergency department services (procedure code 99285) 
rendered on November 12, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. You say that this 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 99285 is "Emergency department visit for the evaluation 
and management of a patient, which requires these 3 key components within the constraints imposed by the 
urgency of the patient's clinical condition and/or mental status: A comprehensive history; A comprehensive 
examination; and Medical decision making of high complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with 
other physicians, other qualified health care professionals, or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of high 
severity and pose an immediate significant threat to life or physiologic function." 
 
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 services. Our reviewer says that the service at issue in 
this case were not supported by the medical records. Our reviewer found that the review has determined that 
the records supported a comprehensive history and examination but not medical decision making of high 
complexity. The records did not support the presenting problems were of high severity, posing an immediate 
significant threat to life and function. 
 
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 services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pay for emergency department services (procedure code 99285) rendered on November 12, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for initial hospital care (procedure code 99222) rendered on August 9, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. You say that this should be paid for. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says that 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 99222 is "Initial hospital care, per day, for the evaluation and management of a patient, which requires 
these 3 key components: A comprehensive history; A comprehensive examination; and Medical decision 
making of moderate complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other physicians, other qualified 
health care professionals, or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's 
and/or family's needs. Usually, the problem(s) requiring admission are of moderate severity. Typically, 50 
minutes are spent at the bedside and on the patient's hospital floor or unit." 
 
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 services. Our reviewer says that the services at issue in 
this case were not supported by the medical records. Our reviewer found that CPT code 99222 is supported. 
The record contains documentation of a comprehensive history with history and physical, review of systems, 
and past medical, surgical, family, and social history. A comprehensive examination was performed. The 
medical decision making was moderate and included reviewing medical records, ordering tests, medication 
management, and the decision to perform the procedure. Modifier 25 is supported, as the examination was 
separately identifiable from the procedure. 
 
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 services have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for 
initial hospital care (procedure code 99222) rendered on August 9, 2022.  
 
If the Plan does not agree with our decision, they can ask us to open a case again. We only open a case again 
if we believe there was a mistake or if there is new information to review. The Plan has to show us the mistake 
and/or send us the new information. This does not happen often. If we decide to open the case again, we will 
send you a letter.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the vascular embolization or occlusion, inclusive of all 
radiological supervision and interpretation, intraprocedural roadmapping, and imaging guidance necessary to 
complete the intervention; arterial, other than hemorrhage or tumor (eg, congenital or acquired arterial 
malformations, arteriovenous malformations, arteriovenous fistulas, aneurysms, pseudoaneurysms) (37242). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the service. You say that the service is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the 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 the service. Our reviewer says that the 
requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found the record indicates that the enrollee has benign prostatic hypertrophy with lower urinary tract symptoms. There is insufficient literature to support the safety and efficacy, as defined by Medicare rules, of 
the requested service. The record provided does not establish the medical necessity and reasonableness, as 
defined by Medicare rules, of the requested service. The elements of the coverage criteria are not satisfied. The 
requested service is not recommended. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the service have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve the vascular embolization or occlusion, inclusive of all radiological supervision and 
interpretation, intraprocedural roadmapping, and imaging guidance necessary to complete the intervention; 
arterial, other than hemorrhage or tumor (eg, congenital or acquired arterial malformations, arteriovenous 
malformations, arteriovenous fistulas, aneurysms, pseudoaneurysms) (37242).
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 Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility is 
needed for the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's records do not show that 
you need an intensive team for your care. Services needed may be provided safely in 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. 
 
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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a genicular nerve block rendered on June 3, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the block. You say that this should be paid for. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says this is considered to be experimental and investigational. 
 
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 block. Our reviewer says that the 
requested services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer 
found that genicular nerve blocks and genicular nerve ablations are considered investigational and not 
medically necessary for the treatment of chronic knee pain, including, but not limited to any of the 
following:  degenerative joint disease; osteoarthritis of the knee; as a treatment prior to knee replacement; as a 
treatment following knee replacement; or as a treatment for individuals who are not candidates for knee replacement surgery. The review has determined that the requested genicular nerve block is considered 
experimental in nature. 
 
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 block have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve a genicular nerve block rendered on June 3, 2022.
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 stay is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the stay is not medically necessary based on LTACH criteria.  
 
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 is receiving home health services for a diabetic foot ulcer with concern 
for abscess.  The record provided does not indicate that the enrollee requires acute care services on a daily basis 
and can be managed in a lower level of care. The enrollee continues to receive services that have not been 
denied. The medical record does not indicate that the enrollee requires services that the enrollee is not currently receiving but that would be available at the LTACH facility. If the enrollee requires acute care services, a 
short-term acute care facility can evaluate the enrollee. 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 acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there is lack of clear 
evidence to support that the enrollee requires skilled treatments daily to support the medical necessity for this 
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. 
 
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 Procrit (J0885). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Procrit. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the drug is not being 
prescribed in a medically accepted reasonable and necessary manner. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that ESA treatment is not reasonable and necessary for 
beneficiaries with certain clinical conditions including any anemia in cancer or cancer treatment patients due to 
folate deficiency, B-12 deficiency, iron deficiency, hemolysis, bleeding, or bone marrow fibrosis. 
 
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 Procrit. Our reviewer says that the 
enrollee does not meet the coverage criteria for Procrit. Our physician reviewer found the record indicates that 
the enrollee has anemia in chronic kidney disease. The record provided indicates that the enrollee has iron 
deficiency that has not been corrected. Our reviewer found that the elements of the coverage criteria are not 
satisfied. Our physician reviewer also found that the requested service is not recommended. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Procrit have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pre-approve Procrit (J0885).
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the medical records support this patient meets the 
full criteria for an inpatient rehabilitation stay. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says based on Medicare 
guidelines, the IRF services requested do not meet the requirements for approval. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of the enrollees nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The enrollee 
was admitted for gastrointestinal bleeding, anemia, a foot wound, and a below the knee amputation. Medical 
problems are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. While 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. 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 IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you need assistance as you live alone and cannot get 
up the stairs independently.  The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an IRF admission is not medically 
necessary, and your needs can be met in another setting.  
 
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 your medical problems are stable and there are no complex nursing or 
rehabilitation needs. 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 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 currently meets acute inpatient 
rehabilitation admission criteria. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the 
criteria for admission to an Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility. 
 
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. 
 
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 are appealing the denial for IRF. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says that the requested services 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 that 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. Medically necessary care can be provided in a 
different level of care. There is not a reasonable expectation that this enrollee will be able to fully participate in 
 and benefit from  the intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF. 
 
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.