Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Testing
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a repeat sleep study. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve these services. 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 a repeat sleep study 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 a repeat sleep study is not required for 
device replacement. There is no indication that the enrollee has had a change in examination or symptoms to 
prompt a repeat study. The criteria for coverage are not met and the sleep study 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 repeat sleep study.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve vertiflex procedure. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve vertiflex procedure. You say that you are requesting reconsideration for the 
denied claim. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this procedure is considered to be 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 vertiflex procedure. Our reviewer says 
that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the vertiflex device is experimental in spine surgery. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of vertiflex procedure have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve vertiflex procedure.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that the medical records provided support the need for 
the requested SNF admission.  The Plan denied your request. The Plan says based on Medicare guidelines and 
the information we have about the enrollee's condition they don't meet the factor.  
 
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 needs that require the specialized 
skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional nurse. The enrollee does have daily skilled therapy 
needs that require the specialized skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional therapist. The 
enrollee does not require daily skilled nursing and/or skilled therapy on an inpatient basis in a skilled nursing 
facility (SNF) setting. The enrollee does not meet severity of illness or intensity of service criteria for an 
inpatient basis in a skilled nursing facility 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 SNF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure codes 64445 and 64450 provided on June 12, 
2023. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for procedure codes 64445 and 64450. You say that you would like the Plan to 
reconsider their denial of payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services are not supported 
as billed. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate CPT code. 
 
In this case, we have confirmed that codes 64445 and 64450 are column II codes to column I code 01480; 
however, 64445 and 64450 were billed with a modifier.  
 
We asked our coder to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to determine if the 
Plan was correct in denying the request to pay for procedure codes 64445 and 64450. Our reviewer says that 
the medical records do not support that procedure codes 64445 and 64450 are distinct because they do not 
overlap usual components of the main service, 01480.  Our reviewer found the documentation submitted was 
reviewed and procedure codes 64445 and 64450 are not supported as billed. The procedure report does not 
include sufficient documentation to support the injections were rendered for post operative pain at the request 
of the surgeon and cannot be verified.  
 
We looked at this coder's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of procedure codes 64445 and 64450 have not been met. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure codes 64445 and 64450 provided on June 12, 2023.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve SNF services. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve continued SNF services. You say that continued SNF services are medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you do not meet the Medicare criteria for continued 
SNF services. 
 
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 continued SNF services. Our reviewer 
says that the requested continued SNF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on 
Medicare guidelines. Our physician reviewer found you do not have daily skilled nursing needs that require the 
specialized skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional nurse. You do not have daily skilled 
therapy needs that require the specialized skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional therapist. 
You do not require daily skilled nursing and/or skilled therapy on an inpatient basis in a SNF 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 continued SNF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve SNF services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a home ventilator system. 
 
  You asked the Plan to pre-approve a home ventilator system. You say that the enrollee has issues breathing. 
You say that the enrollee has an obstruction to their airway, which has resulted in hospitalization for respiratory 
failure. You say that the enrollee has a severe life-threatening obstruction to their airway caused by advanced 
COPD and requires access to a non-invasive ventilator utilizing AVAPS-AE mode 24/7. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says a home ventilator is not medically necessary for this patient because their needs can be 
met with an alternative device such as a BiPAP device with average volume-assured pressure support 
(AVAPS).  
 
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 system. Our reviewer 
says that a home ventilator system is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee 
has COPD and was previously treated for lung cancer and is on chronic opioid therapy. The enrollee also was 
admitted to the hospital on December 19, 2023, and their arterial blood gases were consistent with acute 
chronic carbon dioxide retention. However, the enrollee has improved on a BiPAP. Also, there is no diagnosis 
of thoracic restrictive disease or neuromuscular disease. The enrollee may benefit from a BiPAP with volume 
assurance mode as an outpatient, which has not been tried. Therefore, a home ventilator 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 a home ventilator system have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve a home ventilator system.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a genicular nerve block provided on June 17, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for a genicular nerve block. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says this does not meet the criteria for approval. 
 
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 pay for a genicular nerve block. Our reviewer says 
that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the record indicates that the enrollee has osteoarthritis of the knee. There is 
insufficient literature to support the safety and efficacy of the requested service. The record provided does not 
establish the medical necessity and reasonableness. 
 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 genicular nerve block have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pay for a genicular nerve block provided on June 17, 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 without the IRF services the enrollee's health will be 
greatly jeopardized. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the IRF services are 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 enrollee's medical problems are stable and there are no complex nursing or 
rehabilitation needs. The enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies 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. 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: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has 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 the requirements for IRF services 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 found to be medically reasonable and necessary for this enrollee. Our physician reviewer 
found The complexity of the patients nursing medical and rehabilitation needs does require an acute hospital 
inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The enrollee does require treatment by 
multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation 
therapy program at least three hours a day and five days a week, or 15 hours over seven consecutive 
days. Therefore, the acute inpatient rehabilitation admission is 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 IRF care have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-approve 
acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.  
 
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: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Evenity. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Evenity. You say that the requested Evenity is not medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee must try and fail Forteo first. 
 
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 Evenity. Our reviewer says that the 
Plan's step therapy criteria have not been met. Our physician reviewer found the record indicates that the 
enrollee has age related osteoporosis without osteoporotic fracture. The requested medication is a new start. 
The provided records do not indicate that the enrollee has tried and failed the plan's preferred step one 
alternative. The record does not indicate that the enrollee has a contraindication to or would have an adverse 
effect from the plan's preferred step one alternative. 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 Evenity have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pre-approve Evenity.
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 meets all applicable Medicare criteria 
for admission to an acute rehabilitation unit. 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 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. The enrollee's 
medical conditions appear improved on stable medications with no issues that appear to require a physician's 
evaluation three or more times per week in a hospital setting. The enrollee does require physical therapy and 
occupational therapy services, but the medical records do not clarify why the enrollee requires an intensive 
inpatient rehabilitation therapy program. The provided medical records do not support that the intensive 
inpatient rehabilitation therapy program is necessary and that therapy at a lower level of care such as in a 
skilled nursing facility is not appropriate for the enrollee. The enrollee would be expected to participate in and 
benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in an inpatient rehabilitation facility; 
however, the medical records do not support a complexity of needs to require an acute inpatient rehabilitation 
facility with an interdisciplinary team over a skilled nursing 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 IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Gamunex-C. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Gamunex-C. You say that the medication is 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 Gamunex-C.  Benefits for Gamunex-C 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 LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve LTACH services. You say that the enrollee needs LTACH services. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the enrollee is currently unstable for 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 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 is receiving appropriate care in the current acute care setting as 
provided by the Plan. The documentation provided does not support that LTACH services are medically 
appropriate 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 LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve 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 you need this level of care. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says medical records do not support the need for an IRF admission and, your needs can be 
safely provided at another setting.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of your medical, rehabilitation, and nursing needs does not require 
IRF care with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitative care. Your rehabilitation needs can be safely 
provided in an alternate 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 acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.