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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve epidural steroid injections (64483). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve epidural steroid injections. You say that the services are necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says based on the documentation provided, coverage criteria has not been met. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that epidural steroid injection (ESI) will be considered 
medically reasonable and necessary when certain requirements 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 epidural steroid injections. Our 
reviewer says that the services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found there is no 
documentation that the last injection provided pain relief for three months or more. The review has determined 
that the requested TFESI is not medically reasonable or necessary. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of epidural steroid injections have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve epidural steroid injections (64483).
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve treatment with Aranesp (J0881). 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve Aranesp. You say that Aranesp is a medical necessity for the enrollee. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says step-therapy rules for coverage of Aranesp 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 Aranesp. Our reviewer says that 
treatment with Aranesp is not medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found 
that the Plan requires a trial of drugs Retacrit or Procrit before they will approve the requested drug, Aranesp. 
Based on the medical records provided, there is no indication that the enrollee has tried and failed the required 
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 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 Aranesp have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve treatment with Aranesp (J0881).
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the pneumatic compression device (E0675) and segmental 
pneumatic appliance (E0673) provided on March 1, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the pneumatic compression device and appliance. You say that this device was 
provided for use during the patient's surgery. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says equipment used in a 
facility for a procedure is not separately payable. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules state that for equipment to be covered, it must be appropriate 
and needed for use inside the home.  
 
The item at issue in this appeal is for use outside of the home. Although this item may be helpful, neither 
Medicare nor the Plan covers equipment for use outside the home. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the pneumatic compression device (E0675) and segmental pneumatic appliance (E0673) 
provided on March 1, 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 requires an IRF admission to optimize 
recovery from your current medical and physical condition. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
IRF services requested do not meet the requirements for approval. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either 
physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While the medical 
record supports a need for physical or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive 
rehabilitation services. 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. 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a therapeutic CGM and supplies. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a therapeutic CGM and supplies. You say that you have pre-diabetes, and 
you would like a therapeutic CGM to be approved. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you do not 
meet Medicare criteria for a therapeutic CGM. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that therapeutic CGMs are considered medically 
reasonable and necessary when prescribed in accordance with their FDA indications for enrollees with diabetes 
who are insulin treated or who have a history of problematic hypoglycemia, and have had an in-person visit 
with their treating physician to evaluate their diabetes control and determine whether the criteria for coverage 
have been met. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The documentation indicates that you do not have diabetes. Based on 
this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of a therapeutic CGM and supplies have not been 
met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a therapeutic CGM and supplies.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Life2000 system.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a Life2000 system. You say that the requested device is not available within 
the network and this specific device is medically necessary to provide the enrollee with the ventilatory support 
he requires.  The Plan denied your request. The Plan says they have participating providers who can supply a 
ventilator.  
 
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 a Life2000 system. Our reviewer says 
that the requested item is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found this enrollee has pulmonary fibrosis, traction bronchiectasis, and obstructive sleep apnea.  The 
Life2000 system is not a true ventilator because it is not capable of providing full ventilatory support.  It is intended to be used during activity, and there is inadequate evidence that it is beneficial in the treatment of any 
chronic lung disease. 
 
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 Life2000 system have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a Life2000 system.
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Prolia. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve Prolia. You say that the services are necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says based on the documentation provided, coverage criteria has 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 Prolia. Our reviewer says that the 
services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found based on the medical records provided 
there is no indication that you have tried and failed the required drugs. There is no indication that the plan's 
required drugs would likely be less effective and/or likely have adverse effects for you. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Prolia have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pre-approve Prolia.
Appeal type: Other
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Hymovis.  
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Hymovis. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the step therapy 
criteria are not 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 Hymovis. Our reviewer says that 
Hymovis is not medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee 
has not trialed viscosupplemental treatments such as Synvisc, Durolane, and Gelsyn-3.  Step therapy, as 
outlined by the plan, requires that these be trialed first. The documentation does not outline contraindications or 
reasons these medications were not considered or that the Plan's additional 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 Hymovis have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Hymovis.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the pneumatic compression device (E0675) and segmental 
pneumatic appliances (E0673) provided on February 21, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the pneumatic compression device and appliances. You say that this device was 
provided for use during the patient's surgery. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says equipment used in a 
facility for a procedure is not separately payable. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules state that for equipment to be covered, it must be appropriate 
and needed for use inside the home.  
 
The item at issue in this appeal is for use outside of the home. Although this item may be helpful, neither 
Medicare nor the Plan covers equipment for use outside the home. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the pneumatic compression device (E0675) and segmental pneumatic appliances (E0673) 
provided on February 21, 2023.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the pneumatic compression device (E0675) and segmental 
pneumatic appliance (E0673) provided on December 14, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the pneumatic compression device. You say that this device was provided for use 
during the patient's surgery. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says equipment used in a facility for a 
procedure is not separately payable. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules state that for equipment to be covered, it must be appropriate 
and needed for use inside the home.  
 
The item at issue in this appeal is for use outside of the home. Although this item may be helpful, neither 
Medicare nor the Plan covers equipment for use outside the home. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the pneumatic compression device (E0675) and segmental pneumatic appliance (E0673) 
provided on December 14, 2022.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health services for date of service January 26, 
2023, to February 14, 2023. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for the home health services. You say that you disagree with the Plan's denial. 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 26, 2023. The NOA was not received by the Plan. 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 for date of service 
January 26, 2023, to February 14, 2023.
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 you were denied skilled nursing facility 
care due to your medical needs and LTACH is your only other option. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says the services are 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 you are receiving appropriate care at the present acute care hospital. You do not 
require services at the LTACH that are not available at the acute care hospital where you are currently 
receiving care. There are no services available at the LTACH that you require that are not available at the 
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 long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the enrollee needs to be transferred to the 
LTACH to regain maximum/prior level of functioning and continue a multidisciplinary approach to care. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the guidelines for care in an LTACH.  
 
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 has ongoing acute medical issues and still requires acute care 
services. The enrollee continues to receive acute care services, and these have not been denied by the Plan. The 
medical record does not indicate that the enrollee requires services that they are not currently receiving but that 
would be available at the LTACH facility.  
 
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: Outpatient Therapies
Decision: Partially Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve the 2 of the 10 PT visits requested. We decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve the 8 additional PT visits requested.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the 10 additional PT visits. You say that the services are medically 
necessary for you to get better and maintain your quality of life.  The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 
that the services are not medically necessary. 
 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve 2 of the additional 10 PT visits requested.  
 
We also decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve 8 of the additional 10 PT visits requested. 
 
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: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for inpatient hospital services provided on July 29, 2022, to August 2, 
2022, at the Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) originally billed. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the inpatient hospital services at the DRG originally billed. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says that the billed DRG is not supported. 
 
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 diagnosis codes A41.9 and J96.21. 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 use of diagnosis codes A41.9 and J96.21 is supported by the records provided. Our 
physician reviewer found that the patient has chronic respiratory failure with chronic obstructive pulmonary 
disease (COPD) requiring home oxygen, who was found to have leukocytosis, pulmonary infiltrates and 
hypoxia, thus meeting criteria for sepsis from pneumonia and acute on chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided the 
medical records do substantiate the DRG as billed. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for inpatient 
hospital services provided on July 29, 2022, to August 2, 2022, at the Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) 
originally billed.  
 
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 Freestyle Libre Kit 2 Sensor. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Freestyle Libre Kit 2 Sensor. You say that a Freestyle Libre Kit 2 Sensor is 
medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you do not meet Medicare criteria for a 
therapeutic CGM. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that therapeutic CGMs may be considered reasonable and 
necessary for enrollees with diabetes who meet the criteria referenced 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 Freestyle Libre Kit 2 Sensor. Our 
reviewer says that the service is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that you are not using 
insulin, you are not having low blood sugar and you are not on a medication that should cause low blood 
sugars. Although a CGM may help with blood sugar control, coverage criteria are not met at this time. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Freestyle Libre Kit 2 Sensor have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve a Freestyle Libre Kit 2 Sensor.
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 IRF care is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the requested IRF admission does not meet the Medicare coverage criteria.  
 
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 clinical documentation does not specify any active medical comorbidities 
(acute kidney injury resolve, blood pressure stable, anemia stable) thus the complexity of the enrollees 
documented nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs would not be expected to require an acute hospital 
inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The clinical documentation shows that 
the enrollee would be expected to require ongoing physical therapy and occupational therapy but does not 
support an intensive rehabilitation regimen in an IRF setting. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve IRF admission and services.