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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an Optimizer Smart implantable pulse generator. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the requested services. You say that the enrollee suffers from dyspnea and 
shortness of breath.  The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this service is considered experimental.  
 
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 requested services. Our physician 
reviewer found that the enrollee has left ventricular dysfunction with continued symptoms, despite medical 
treatment, thought to reflect congestive heart failure. This request is for the implantation of a cardiac 
contractility modulation system in the form of the Optimizer Smart device (CCM). An exhaustive review of the 
current medical literature pertaining to the CCM system confirms multiple observational studies suggesting 
clinical benefit from CCM.  The requested CCM remains the subject of multiple studies examining long-term efficacy, as well as 
randomized, controlled, double-blinded trials to quantify clinical efficacy. Until such statistically rigorous 
studies are completed, it is premature to presume clinical outcomes and benefit. At the current time, the CCM 
system is not considered to be medically necessary in this 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 the requested services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve an Optimizer Smart implantable pulse generator.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a dental implant (code D6010). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a dental implant. You say that this dental implant is needed because you had 
a crown fall off due to an abscess. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says dental implants are not covered 
under your Plan. 
 
Medicare generally does not cover dental services. However, the Plan offers a dental benefit that exceeds 
Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plans coverage rules apply in this case. 
 
Though the Plan offers a dental benefit in excess of Medicare coverage, the requested items or services are not 
among those covered under this benefit. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a 
dental implant (code D6010).
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the office visits to be provided by an out-of-network 
(OON) provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the office visits. You say that the service is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says there are in-network providers available to perform this service. 
 
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 
the office visits to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health services provided from January 31, 2022, to 
March 1, 2022. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for the home health services. You say that the NOA is on file. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the NOA was not received timely. As such, this final claim was correctly denied.  
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that an NOA must be submitted within 5 days of the start of 
care date for home health services. NOAs which are received more than 30 days from the timely filing date 
result in no payment being made for the episode of care.  
 
In this case, the start of care date is January 31, 2022. The NOA was not received by the Plan until October 12, 
2022. As more than 30 days passed between the timely filing date and the NOA receipt, no payment can be 
made on this claim. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health services 
provided from January 31, 2022, to March 1, 2022.
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 inpatient rehabilitation is needed for fracture of the 
ankle and foot. You say the enrollee needs help getting back to their baseline to get home. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the Medicare criteria for admission to an IRF. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. 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 inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that requesting reconsideration of the denied 
authorization. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the admission to a LTACH is not medically 
necessary. 
 
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 that the enrollee does not require services at the LTACH that are not available at the 
acute care hospital where they are currently receiving care. All medically necessary care is being provided in 
the current acute care setting. The requested LTACH services are not medically necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee and able to be furnished safely and effectively only 
on an inpatient basis. 
 
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 LTACH services.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Injection, Ipilimumab (J9228) and Nivolumab (J9299). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Injection, Ipilimumab and Nivolumab. You say that services are medically 
necessary. 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 Injection, Ipilimumab 
(J9228) and Nivolumab (J9299).
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 an expedited reconsideration for 
the denial of an IRF admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says criteria for admission to the acute 
IRF 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. 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 inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health services provided from January 13, 2022, to 
February 11, 2022. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for the home health services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the NOA 
was not received timely. As such, this final claim was correctly denied.  
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that an NOA must be submitted within 5 days of the start of 
care date for home health services. NOAs which are received more than 30 days from the timely filing date 
result in no payment being made for the episode of care.  
 
In this case, the start of care date is January 13, 2022. The NOA was not received by the Plan until May 27, 
2022. As more than 30 days passed between the timely filing date and the NOA receipt, no payment can be 
made on this claim. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health services 
provided from January 13, 2022, to February 11, 2022.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve Tezspire. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Tezspire. You say that you are requesting reconsideration based on medical 
necessity. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the request is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for a drug or biological only if it is safe 
and effective and otherwise 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 Tezspire. Our reviewer says that the 
service is medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee is receiving other medications for 
asthma, so this is add-on maintenance therapy. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has stated that the 
requested drug is indicated for the enrollee's condition. The elements of the coverage criteria are 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 Tezspire have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-approve 
Tezspire.  
 
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: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health services provided from June 26, 2022, to 
July 25, 2022. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for the home health services. You say that the Plan was not clear about whether a 
NOA was required. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the NOA was not received timely. As such, 
this final claim was correctly denied.  
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that an NOA must be submitted within 5 days of the start of 
care date for home health services. NOAs which are received more than 30 days from the timely filing date 
result in no payment being made for the episode of care.  
 
In this case, the start of care date is May 27, 2022. The NOA was not received by the Plan until January 11, 
2023. As more than 30 days passed between the timely filing date and the NOA receipt, no payment can be 
made on this claim. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health services 
provided from June 26, 2022, to July 25, 2022.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Hyalgan injections. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Hyalgan injections. You say that you would like reconsideration based on 
the records submitted. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the use of this drug for the enrollee's illness 
is not reasonable and necessary by Medicare guidelines.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for a drug or biological only if it is safe 
and effective and otherwise 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 Hyalgan injections. Our physician 
reviewer found there is no documentation of a trial and failure or contraindication of at least 3 months of 
conservative therapy. The review has determined that the documentation does not support that the Hyalgan 
injections are medically reasonable and necessary for the enrollee. The documentation does not support that the 
Hyalgan injections are safe and effective 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 Hyalgan injections have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve Hyalgan injections.
Appeal type: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve additional miles for routine transportation beyond the 
Plan's 50-mile limit. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve additional miles for routine transportation. You say that you need to see this 
neurologist. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested trip exceeds your mileage 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 routine transportation when each one-way trip does not exceed 50 miles of driving 
distance.  
 
We looked at your request, the records in the case file, and the rules. In this case the requested trip is greater 
than 50 miles of driving distance. Based on this information, we decided that the Plans rules for coverage of 
routine transportation have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve 
additional miles for routine transportation beyond the Plan's 50-mile limit.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve SNF care. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that the enrollee was more independent and able to 
ambulate independently prior to hospitalization. You also say the enrollee's physician states they could benefit 
from therapy services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that based on Medicare guidelines, the SNF 
services requested do not meet the requirements for approval.  
 
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 considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found that the enrollee does not have documented skilled nursing needs. The enrollee does 
have documented skilled therapy needs. The enrollee is functioning below her baseline after a recent urinary 
tract infection (UTI) and hospitalization. Daily skilled services are required to establish a maintenance program 
or to prevent deterioration of the enrollees condition. 
 
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 been met. The Plan must continue coverage for the SNF skilled 
service until such time as the enrollee no longer needs the service and proper notice has been issued, or the 
100-day Medicare benefit is exhausted. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-approve SNF care.  
 
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 a ventilator. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a ventilator. You say that the system reduces strain for breathing. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the documentation does not show that a BiPAP will not meet the enrollee's 
needs.  
 
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. 
 
 
 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 ventilator. Our physician reviewer 
found that the enrollee has chronic hypoxic and hypercapnic respiratory failure from chronic obstructive 
pulmonary disease. The record indicates that the enrollee was successfully treated with BiPAP. The provided 
documentation does not contain sufficient detailed information to justify the treatment selected. The enrollee 
could be treated with a BiPAP and failure of such a device has not been documented. The elements of the 
coverage criteria 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 a ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a ventilator.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve hyalgan injections. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the medication. You say that the enrollee has undergone multiple cortisone 
injections as well as physical and conventional therapy that only provide temporary relief. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says that the requested medication does not meet criteria for coverage. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for a drug or biological only if it is safe 
and effective and otherwise 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 the medication. Our reviewer says that 
the service is medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has tried PT in the past and meets 
the criteria for viscosupplementation. 
 
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 medication have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-
approve hyalgan injections.  
 
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: 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 a fast appeal for the denial of an 
IRF admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the Medicare criteria 
for admission to an IRF.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. 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 inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.