Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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 feel the enrollee meets criteria for 
the LTACH and formally request an expedited reconsideration. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 
criteria for admission to the LTACH have not been met. 
 
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 appears to be improving with current treatment but is still somewhat 
unstable and should only require short-term additional acute care services that can safely be provided at the 
current facility. There are no services at the LTACH that the enrollee requires that are not already available and 
covered at the current facility. Transfer to the LTACH would not be clinically advantageous at this time and 
completion of treatment at the current facility is 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 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an oral appliance. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve these services. You say that you disagree with the denial. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the services are not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that an oral appliance 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 the enrollee meets the criteria for mild 
obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and has not been treated with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) 
therapy. The enrollee has not exhausted medical therapy for mild OSA. The criteria for coverage are not met 
and the oral appliance is not reasonable or medically necessary 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 these services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve an oral appliance.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve wound care surgery to be provided by an out-of-
network (OON) provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the OON surgical procedure. You say that you are not able to wait until 
October for this procedure as you have an open wound.  The Plan denied your request. The Plan says it was 
found that there are other network providers who are able to provide this care within a reasonable time frame.  
 
Medicare rules say that plans can require enrollees to get care from network providers. The contract with the 
Plan says that the Plan has to pre-approve care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving 
emergencies, out of area urgent care and care that cannot be provided by network providers. 
 
 The requested provider in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan has network providers 
available who can provide the items/services at issue in this appeal. We found no exception that would require 
the Plan to pre-approve these items/services. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve 
wound care surgery to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Intracept procedure (64628, 64629). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the Intracept procedure. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says this enrollee does not meet evidence-based criteria. 
 
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 Intracept procedure. Our reviewer 
says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found there is no magnetic resonance imaging showing only modic changes and no facet 
degenerative joint disease or foraminal stenosis. The cause of back pain is not clear. 
 
   
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 Intracept procedure have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve the Intracept procedure (64628, 64629).
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a continuous glucose monitor (CGM).  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the requested CGM. You say that it is felt that CGM is necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says Medicare criteria for CGM are not met.  
 
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 the requested CGM. Our reviewer says 
that the requested CGM is not medically necessary based on the LCD guidelines.  Our physician reviewer 
found the enrollee is a female with diabetes treated with metformin and Tradjenta. Her glycated hemoglobin 
level in May 2023 is 8.6%. The coverage criteria require either insulin use or frequent low glucose levels. 
There is no documentation of any low glucose levels, nor why standard fingersticks cannot meet her needs.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the requested CGM have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve a continuous glucose monitor (CGM).
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 disagree with the denial and request 
reconsideration. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request does not meet Medicare guidelines for 
medical necessity because the enrollee's medical condition requires further evaluation and treatment in the 
acute care hospital. 
 
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 was admitted for weakness and double vision. Medical problems are 
stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. 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 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 this 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve incontinence supplies.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve incontinence supplies. You say that the enrollee has severe incontinence and 
is unable to be without these supplies. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested items are not 
covered. 
 
The Plan covers all items that Medicare covers. Medicare rules state that incontinence supplies are not covered 
because they are hygienic items that are non-reusable.  
 
While incontinence supplies may be appropriate in this case, neither the Plan nor Medicare offers coverage of 
these items. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve incontinence supplies.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Vertiflex procedure (22869). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the Vertiflex procedure. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says unproven and not medically necessary procedures are not covered by 
Medicare due to insufficient evidence of efficacy. 
 
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 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. More research is needed. 
 
   
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 Vertiflex procedure have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve the Vertiflex procedure (22869).
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Synvisc. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve Synvisc. You say that you disagree with the Plan's denial. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the requested drug does not meet step therapy criteria. 
 
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 Synvisc. Our reviewer says that the 
documentation does not support that the requested drug meets step therapy criteria. Our physician reviewer 
found the enrollee has osteoarthritis of the knee. The documentation does not support that the enrollee has tried 
and failed Orthovisc or Supartz FX. The documentation does not support that Orthovisc or Supartz FX would 
likely be less effective and/or likely have adverse effects for the enrollee. Therefore, the enrollee does not meet 
criteria for the requested drug. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Synvisc have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Synvisc.
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 enrollee was discharged too soon. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the SNF services you are requesting 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 not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee does not require skilled nursing or skilled therapy services that require 
the specialized skill, knowledge, and judgement of a skilled professional nurse or therapist. The enrollee does 
not require skilled services on a daily basis. The enrollee does not require skilled services 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 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: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve inpatient behavioral health. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve inpatient behavioral health. You say that you disagree with the Plan's denial. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the requested services are 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 inpatient behavioral health. Our 
reviewer says that the documentation supports that the requested inpatient psychiatric services are medically 
reasonable and necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee was admitted to the acute inpatient 
psychiatric hospitalization on July 20, 2023 with Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Severe with Psychotic 
Features. The enrollee presented with an inability to eat and began hallucinating two weeks prior to going to 
the emergency department. The documentation supports that it was expected this enrollee would improve in a 
reasonable period of time. It does appear medically necessary and reasonable to have psychiatric care provided 
at the acute inpatient level of care rather than a lower level of care although the enrollee did not have 
dangerousness to self or others the enrollee did have auditory and visual hallucinations. This enrollee does 
require inpatient mental health treatment although the enrollee was not a danger to herself or others, the 
enrollee was uncooperative with care and showing auditory/visual hallucinations. It did appear that active 
treatment was taking place. The enrollee meets criteria for acute inpatient mental health treatment as although 
this enrollee was not shown to be a danger to herself or others, the enrollee did have auditory auditory/visual 
hallucinations.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of inpatient behavioral health have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
has to pre-approve inpatient behavioral health.  
 
If the Plan does not agree with our decision, they can ask us to open a case again. We only open a case again 
if we believe there was a mistake or if there is new information to review. The Plan has to show us the mistake 
and/or send us the new information. This does not happen often. If we decide to open the case again, we will 
send you a letter.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that a lower level of care is not safe, sufficient or 
equipped to address the enrollee's needs related to their comorbidities and allow the enrollee to gain a higher 
level of functioning to improve their quality of life. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee 
does not meet the Medicare criteria for admission to an IRF. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee is limited in their capacity to function as they are non-weight bearing in 
their arm. The enrollee is unable to rehabilitate their arm and does not require comprehensive or intensive 
rehabilitation.  
 
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: 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 records provided support medical necessity. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the SNF services you are requesting 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 not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee does not require skilled nursing or skilled therapy services that require 
the specialized skill, knowledge, and judgement of a skilled professional nurse or therapist. The enrollee does 
not require skilled services on a daily basis. The enrollee does not require skilled services 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 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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve placement of a CardioMEMS device (33289, C2624). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a CardioMEMS device. You say that the requested service is a medical 
necessity for the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested service is 
experimental/investigational. 
 
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 CardioMEMS device. Our reviewer 
says that the requested services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found that there remains a dearth of randomized, blinded clinical studies examining long-
term clinical outcomes establishing the value of CardioMEMS in patient management. 
 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 CardioMEMS device have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve placement of a CardioMEMS device (33289, C2624).
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 rehab services to return to their 
prior level of function. 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: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve air ambulance transportation back to Texas. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the air ambulance transport. You say that the enrollee was hospitalized 
while out of town and needs to return home for subacute rehabilitation. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says this type of transportation is not covered by Medicare.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that air ambulance services are covered from one hospital 
to another only if the medical appropriateness criteria are met, that is, transportation by ground ambulance 
would endanger the beneficiarys health and the transferring hospital does not have adequate facilities to 
provide the medical services needed by the patient. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The file shows that the transportation requested is due to enrollee 
preference, and not to the nearest appropriate facility. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare 
rules for coverage of the air ambulance transport have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve air ambulance transportation back to Texas.