Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve radiation therapy for prostate adenocarcinoma. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the proton beam therapy (PBT). You say that the services are medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services are 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 proton beam therapy (PBT). Our 
reviewer says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this 
case. Our physician reviewer found the bottom line is that proton therapy for prostate cancer is not 
experimental, and in fact is an accepted treatment approach.  While our physician reviewer does not think that 
proton therapy is an experimental therapy, any potential benefit or detriment of proton therapy over standard 
IMRT for routine cases is investigational. Our physician reviewer's decision is unfavorable in that the service 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 proton beam therapy (PBT) have not been met. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pre-approve radiation therapy for prostate adenocarcinoma.
Appeal type: Outpatient Mental Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve psychology services (96116, 96121 96132, 96133) to be 
provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve psychology services to be provided by an OON provider. You say that the 
services are necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there are in-network providers that are able 
to provide these services. Therefore, coverage criteria have not been met. 
 
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 pre-approve care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving 
emergencies, out of area urgent care and care that cannot be provided by network providers. 
 
The requested provider in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan has network providers available who can provide the items/services at issue in this appeal. We found no exception that would require 
the Plan to pre-approve these items/services. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve 
psychology services (96116, 96121 96132, 96133) to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve the upgraded electronics (E2311, E2313, E2377). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the upgraded electronics. You say that you disagree with the denial. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the upgraded electronics are not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that upgraded electronics are covered when it is medically 
necessary for the enrollee to control the power options through the joystick. 
 
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 upgraded electronics. Our reviewer 
says that the upgraded electronics are medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found you are non-
ambulatory and require a power wheelchair for mobility and performing your basic daily activities. You cannot 
perform pressure relief independently due to weakness. You have a sacral pressure wound and require a power 
wheelchair with power tilt and recline for adequate pressure relief and positioning. You also require power 
elevating leg rests for positioning of your lower extremities. The complexity of your seating and positioning needs necessitates a more complex Group 3 power wheelchair base. The expandable controller with harness 
and electronic connection are necessary to operate the Group 3 power wheelchair base and the three power 
options, including, tilt, recline and elevating leg rests, via a joystick. 
 
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 upgraded electronics have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has 
to pre-approve the upgraded electronics (E2311, E2313, E2377). 
  
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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve monitoring device. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a monitoring device. You say that this CPAP monitoring device is 
medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this is a non-covered Medicare benefit. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that A9279 (monitoring feature/device, stand-alone 
or integrated, any type, includes all accessories, components and electronics, not otherwise classified) are 
denied as statutorily non-covered (No Medicare benefit). 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of a monitoring device have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-
approve monitoring device.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Ondansetron tablets. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Ondansetron tablets. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
medication is not covered as a medical benefit under the Plan. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare Part B generally does not pay for self-
administered drugs. The self-administered drugs requested here are not among the types which are covered by 
Medicare Part B. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Ondansetron tablets.   
Benefits for Ondansetron tablets may be available under Medicare Part D. Contact the Plan that administers 
Part D benefits for further information concerning any benefits and appeal rights.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that Long Term Acute Care Hospital 
admission is medical necessity for the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says discharge to a 
lower level of care would not be appropriate if the enrollee has ongoing acute care needs. 
 
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 there are no services available at the LTACH that the enrollee requires that are not 
available at the current health care setting being offered by the health plan. 
 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. You say that the enrollee currently meets the criteria for 
admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet all the requirements. 
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: 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 enrollee currently meets IRF criteria. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the member does not meet the Medicare criteria for admission to an 
inpatient rehabilitation facility (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 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 surgical repair of a femur fracture after a fall, with complications of shock and respiratory 
failure. 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 the enrollee is not only clinical justified but will 
provide necessary care that is simply not available in-home care, as well as standard rehabilitation. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says based on Medicare guidelines, the inpatient rehabilitation facility (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 
has a diagnosis of brain injury (diffuse axonal injury) and is living at home receiving hospice services. 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 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 IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you are asking for approval for admission per your 
doctors request for inpatient acute rehabilitation. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you do not meet 
the Medicare criteria for admission to an inpatient rehabilitation facility (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 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 
pelvic fractures after a fall. 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 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 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 the clinical condition meets full IRF criteria, lower 
level of care cannot provide total inter discipline team approach needed. The Plan denied your request. The 
Plan says the member does not meet the Medicare criteria for admission to an inpatient rehabilitation facility 
(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 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 congestive heart failure. 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: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Renflexis (Q5104). 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve Renflexis. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this request does not 
meet the Plan's Part B step therapy criteria for Renflexis. 
 
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 Renflexis. Our reviewer says that the 
enrollee does not meet the coverage criteria for Renflexis. Our physician reviewer found the Plan requires a 
trial of one of either Remicade, infliximab, or Inflectra; and Stelara before they will approve the requested 
drug. In this case, the enrollee has not tried and failed the required drugs. Our reviewer also found that there is 
no documentation provided indicating that the plans required drugs would likely be less effective and/or likely 
have adverse effects for the enrollee. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Renflexis have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Renflexis (Q5104).
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for inpatient hospital services rendered from June 1, 2021, to 
June 5, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the inpatient hospital services at the DRG originally billed. You say that this 
should be paid for. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the DRG was updated. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report inpatient hospital services with the appropriate DRG, which is based, in part, on the 
reported principal and secondary diagnosis codes.   
 
In this case, you billed the inpatient services provided with DRG 602. 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 inpatient hospital services at the DRG originally billed. Our reviewer says 
that the services at issue in this case were not supported by the medical records. Our physician reviewer found 
that the enrollee was admitted with bilateral ingrown toenails and cellulitis. The enrollee has chronic 
respiratory issues and was evaluated for bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP). There is no evidence that the 
enrollee had acute respiratory failure. As such, the billing of J96.21 and J96.22 is not supported.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided the 
medical records do not substantiate the DRG as billed. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay 
for inpatient hospital services rendered from June 1, 2021, to June 5, 2021.
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 had an amputation below the knee. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not require around the clock access to a rehabilitation 
nurse or doctor. 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 your 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Group 3 power wheelchair (PWC) with multiple 
power options. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve these services. You say that you disagree with the denial. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the services are not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that a Group 3 PWC with multiple power options is 
covered when specific criteria 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 these services. Our reviewer says that 
the services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee is not at high risk for skin 
breakdown, does not require intermittent catheterization, and does not have spasticity that disrupts her 
positioning. The criteria for coverage are not met and the requested Group 3 PWC with multiple power options 
is not reasonable or medically necessary. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of these services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a Group 3 power wheelchair (PWC) with multiple power options.