Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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 IRF services are medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says this request is not medically necessary.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not require an 
acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. You do not require 
intensive rehabilitation physician or nursing oversight in an IRF. Our reviewer found that your functional level 
does not require treatment by multiple therapies including physical or occupational therapy in an intensive 
rehabilitation program in an IRF. Our physician reviewer also found that while you may benefit from additional 
therapy, the documentation does not support that you require this therapy on an IRF level.  
 
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 the enrollee requires an IRF level of care to return to 
independent functioning. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the IRF services requested do not meet 
the criteria 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 the intensity of services provided at an 
IRF.  Specifically, the enrollee is not shown to require fifteen hours per week of rehabilitative services and 
regular physician evaluation.  The enrollees care needs can be met at a lower level of care.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the services are medically necessary for the enrollee 
to prevent further decline. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the 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 enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies. 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: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Injectafer. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve Injectafer. 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 Injectafer. Our reviewer says that the 
services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has not tried and failed the 
required drugs. The review has determined 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 Injectafer have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Injectafer.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve SNF care. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that the enrollee needs the SNF services to regain 
strength to do daily activities. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the SNF services are not medically 
necessary. 
 
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 not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee does not have daily skilled nursing or therapy needs. The enrollees care 
needs can, as a practical matter, be provided at a lower level of care. The SNF services are not reasonable and 
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 SNF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve SNF care.
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 needs rehabilitation longer, is a fall 
hazard, and needs dialysis. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an IRF admission is not reasonable and 
necessary.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The enrollee's 
medical status does not require intensive rehabilitation physician or nursing oversight in an IRF. Our reviewer 
found that the enrollee's functional level does not require treatment by multiple therapies including physical or 
occupational therapy in an intensive rehabilitation program in an IRF. While the enrollee may  benefit from 
additional therapy, the documentation does not support that the enrollee requires or can fully tolerate this 
therapy on an intensive IRF level.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the genicular nerve block. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve  the genicular nerve block. You say that you have been getting these 
injections since 2019 and it is the only things that works. You say that the injections usually last a year. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the genicular nerve block is considered experimental and excluded 
from coverage.  
 
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 genicular nerve block. Our reviewer 
says that the genicular nerve block is not medically necessary. 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.  
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 genicular nerve block have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve the genicular nerve block.
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 firmly believe the enrollee's 
condition warrants the level of care provided in an LTACH facility. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says the enrollee is receiving appropriate in-patient acute care and does not require transfer to 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 in this case, the enrollee was admitted with abdominal pain and multiple decubitus 
ulcers. The record indicates that the enrollee has ongoing acute medical issues and still requires acute care 
services before transitioning to a lower level of care. Our reviewer found that the enrollee continues to receive 
acute care services, and these have not been denied. Our physician reviewer also found that 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: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Prolia (J0897). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the drug. You say that Prolia is a medical necessity for the enrollee. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says step-therapy rules for coverage of Prolia 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 the drug. Our physician reviewer found 
the enrollee does not have a history of an osteoporotic fracture and has not tried and failed the required drug. 
There is no documentation provided indicating that the Plans required drug, zoledronic acid, 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 the drug have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Prolia (J0897).
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 this request is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says an IRF admission is not reasonable and necessary.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not require an 
acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. You do not require 
treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive 
rehabilitation therapy program. Our reviewer found that while the medical record supports 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. Our physician reviewer also found that 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 inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Neupro. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the medication. You say that you would like the Plan to reconsider their 
denial. 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 Neupro.  
 
Benefits for the medication 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 continued inpatient psychiatric hospital services from 
September 30, 2023, and forward. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve continued inpatient psychiatric hospital services. You say that the requested 
continuation of inpatient psychiatric hospital services from September 30, 2023, and forward is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested continuation of inpatient psychiatric 
hospital services from September 30, 2023, and forward is not medically necessary.  
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that inpatient psychiatric services may be covered if the 
patient requires active treatment.  
 
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 continued inpatient psychiatric hospital 
services. Our reviewer says that the requested continuation of inpatient psychiatric hospital services from 
September 30, 2023, and forward is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found this enrollee did 
not appear to require inpatient mental health treatment beyond the date in question as she was not a danger to 
herself or others and does not have auditory or visual hallucinations. It did not appear that active treatment was 
taking place beyond the date in question. It did not appear that the services were reasonably expected to 
improve the enrollees condition or for the purpose of diagnosis beyond the date in question. I am unable to 
find an individualized treatment plan however the entire record is not present. It did appear that the records 
were supervised and evaluated by a physician. Based upon review of the records provided, this enrollee does 
not meet the criteria for continued inpatient psychiatric treatment from September 30, 2023, and forward as this 
enrollee was not shown to be a danger to herself or others, and no delusions, auditory or visual hallucinations 
noted. She was cooperative/compliant with treatment while not showing any threats to safety. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of continued inpatient psychiatric hospital services have not been met. Therefore, 
we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve continued inpatient psychiatric hospital services from 
September 30, 2023, and forward.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a home ventilator. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a home ventilator. You say that a home ventilator is medically necessary. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet criteria for a home ventilator. 
 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. Claims for ventilators used to provide CPAP or bi-level CPAP therapy will be denied as 
not 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 a home ventilator. Our reviewer says 
that the enrollee does not meet criteria for a home ventilator. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee was 
intubated for aspiration pneumonia in the setting for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and 
chronic respiratory failure. The enrollee was subsequently extubated and intermittently used bilevel positive 
airway pressure (BiPAP) in hospital. The enrollee did not have documented failure of BIPAP with or without 
average volume-assured pressure support (AVAPS). The enrollee does have hypercapnic and hypoxemic 
respiratory failure, however, trial of BIPAP has not been attempted or documented as failure. Hence, a home 
ventilator is not medically necessary given documentation and data provided 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 a home ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a home ventilator.
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 cannot go to a lower level of 
care because they are medically complex with their needs for 24/7 registered nursing and daily physician 
rounding. You also say that the enrollee's needs cannot be accommodated at a skilled nursing facility, and they 
are unable to tolerate 3 hours of therapy required for acute rehabilitation. The Plan denied your request. The 
Plan says based on Medicare guidelines and the information provided about the enrollee's condition, they do 
not meet all of the requirements. 
 
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 in this case, the enrollee was admitted following right internal artery stent placement 
for carotid stenosis at an outside hospital and required operative intervention. The record indicates that the 
enrollee has ongoing acute medical issues and still requires acute care services. Our reviewer found that the 
enrollee continues to receive acute care services, and these have not been denied. Our physician reviewer also 
found that 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.