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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve genicular radiofrequency ablation. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve genicular radiofrequency ablation. You say that the enrollee would benefit 
from the requested procedure. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested treatment is 
considered experimental or unproven. 
 
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 genicular radiofrequency ablation. Our 
reviewer says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this 
case. Our physician reviewer found genicular nerve blocks and genicular radiofrequency ablation are proposed 
treatments for chronic knee pain that has not been effectively managed by pharmacologic or other therapies. 
Published studies have evaluated the use of nerve blocks for the diagnosis and treatment of neuralgias and 
neuropathic pain conditions; however, there is a lack of published adequately designed trials concerning the use 
of genicular nerve blocks and radiofrequency ablation as treatments for 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 genicular radiofrequency ablation have not been met. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan does not have to pre-approve genicular radiofrequency ablation.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that you were diagnosed with pneumonia and severe 
weakness because of the pneumonia. You also say that you need the help of the skilled nursing facility to get 
better.  The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that  based on Medicare guidelines, the skilled nursing 
facility 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 the clinical documentation shows you have had functional and clinical status change 
thus would be expected to  require assessment by skilled therapy and skilled nursing. From a practical 
standpoint, clinical documentation supports daily skilled services on an inpatient basis in 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 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 skilled nursing 
facility (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 pneumatic compression device (E0652). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a pneumatic compression device.. You say that you disagree with the denial. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the specific type of pump requested is only indicated for swelling 
that extends into the chest or abdomen that is not responsive to other therapies. The information provided 
indicates that you have swelling only in your legs. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules state that a PCD coded as E0652 is covered for the treatment of 
lymphedema extending onto the chest, trunk and/or abdomen after a four-week trial of conservative therapy 
demonstrating failed response to treatment with an E0650 or E0651. At least four weeks of regular, daily, 
multiple-hour home usage of the E0650 or E0651 is required. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of the PCD have not been met. Specifically, the record does not show that the enrollee had at least 
four weeks of regular, daily, multiple-hour home usage of the E0650 or E0651 after careful, in-person fitting, 
training and supervision by a technician who is skilled in and who regularly and successfully uses the appliance 
provided.  Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a pneumatic compression device 
(E0652).
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that  the medical records support the medical necessity 
for IRF admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says based on Medicare guidelines, the IRF services 
you are requesting 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 
was admitted for respiratory failure. Medical problems are stable. There are no complex nursing or 
rehabilitation needs. While the medical records support a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there 
is no documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a 
different level of care. There is not a reasonable expectation that the enrollee will be able to fully participate in 
and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute 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 LTACH services are medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says these services can safely be managed in the current 
setting. 
 
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's care is being covered for the acute setting. The enrollee continues 
to have limited ability to wean from the vent with recurrent needs for ventilation. In this case, there are no 
services the LTACH would offer that the current setting would not offer. 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a home ventilator (E0466). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a home ventilator. You say that the requested ventilator is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet criteria for approval of a 
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 service is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the record indicates that the enrollee 
has chronic respiratory failure from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The record indicates that the 
enrollee was successfully treated with a device in average volume assured pressure support (AVAPS) mode. 
The provided primary source documentation does not contain sufficient detailed information in the medical 
record to justify the treatment selected. The enrollee could be treated with a BiPAP machine with AVAPS 
capability 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 home ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a home ventilator (E0466).
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the placement of an intravascular stent (37238).  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the stent placement. You say that an intravascular stent is a medical 
necessity for the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an intravascular stent is not medically 
necessary. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that an intravascular stent is covered when the criteria 
listed in the Medicare rules section 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 the stent placement. Our reviewer says 
that the service is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the documentation does not 
support the medical necessity of endovenous stenting. The enrollee has a very short distance walking limitation 
for which he is to follow up for possible nerve involvement, but this evaluation has not been documented.  
There is no non-invasive imaging suggestive of iliac vein compression provided. As the enrollees symptoms 
are more consistent with a neurogenic etiology as opposed to venous occlusive disease, would be reasonable to 
wait for the recommend evaluation for possible nerve involvement.  
 
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 stent placement have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve the placement of an intravascular stent (37238).
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you deserve this chance in maximizing your 
condition in an attempt at having a better quality of life and returning to your prior levels of functioning. You 
also say that your ortho surgeon and acute care attending physician and rehabilitation team feel that your 
rehabilitation is best serviced in this IRF setting.  The Plan denied your request. The Plan says based on 
Medicare guidelines, the IRF services you are requesting 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 your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not require an 
acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. You were admitted for a 
hip fracture after a fall. Medical problems are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. 
While the medical records support a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documented 
need for intensive rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different level of care. 
There is not a reasonable expectation that you will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive 
rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and 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 LTACH is medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the LTACH services are not medically necessary, and the enrollee's 
needs are being met in the current level of care. 
 
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 altered mental status in the setting of 
pleural effusions from congestive heart failure exacerbation. The record indicates that the enrollee is improving 
but still requires acute care services before transitioning to a lower level of care. The enrollee continues to receive acute care services, and these have not been denied. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you are requesting reconsideration for the denial of 
an IRF admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet Medicare guidelines 
for services in 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. The enrollee's 
rehabilitation needs can be safely provided in an alternate and low intensity setting such as in 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: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the enrollee has a complicated history of 
multiple admissions and failed treatment at a lower level of skilled nursing facility care. You also say that the 
enrollee will continue to require acute care treatments, close medical monitoring, and daily medical doctor 
visits. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says based on Medicare guidelines, the LTACH services 
requested do not meet the requirements for approval. 
 
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 was admitted with complications of multiple myeloma.  The medical record indicates that the enrollee is improving but still requires acute care services before 
transitioning to a lower level of care. The enrollee continues to receive acute care services and these have not 
been denied. 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. The elements of the coverage rules are not 
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 the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve the LTACH services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee's clinical condition meets full IRF 
criteria, and a lower level of care cannot provide the total interdisciplinary team approach needed. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the IRF services you are requesting 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 
rehabilitation needs can be safely provided in an alternate and low intensity setting such as in a skilled nursing 
facility or in an assisted living facility with services.  
 
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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an allograft (20930). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve an allograft. You say that you are requesting reconsideration of the denied 
authorization. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the allograft is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that items and services that are not medically 
necessary are not covered.  
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve an allograft. Our reviewer says that the 
requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found that there is limited published, large-scale, long-term peer-reviewed literature that shows this 
request to be an effective and/or safe treatment for the noted pathology. Further studies are needed to 
corroborate that the requested allograft would be as safe or better than standard autograft procedures. There is  
 no compelling rationale presented, or extenuating circumstances noted to support the medical necessity of this 
request as an exception. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of an allograft have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve an allograft (20930).