Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Udenyca. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve the drug. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the step therapy 
requirements 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 reviewer says that 
Udenyca is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee has neutropenia following 
chemotherapy for adenocarcinoma of the pancreas, and the requested medication is a new start. However, there 
is no indication that the enrollee has tried and failed the Plan's preferred step one alternative. Also, there is no 
indication that the enrollee has a contraindication to or would have an adverse effect from the Plan's preferred 
step one alternative. Therefore, the elements of the coverage criteria are not satisfied, and 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 the drug have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Udenyca.
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's medical condition and care 
requirements cannot be adequately addressed in a lower level of care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says the request is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that LTACH services are covered if they are medically 
necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the LTACH services. Our reviewer says 
that the requested LTACH care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee is receiving the appropriate and necessary care in the current acute care 
setting as provided by the Plan. The records provided do 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 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 a ventilator (E0466). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a ventilator. You say that the services are necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says based on the documentation provided, coverage criteria has not been met. 
 The Plan 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 ventilator. Our reviewer says that the 
services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found a home ventilator is not medically 
necessary. There is no arterial blood gas in the medical record to document chronic carbon dioxide (CO2) 
retention. If that is present, the enrollee may benefit from bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) with 
volume assurance. Medicare does not cover a home ventilator when used at settings that can be provided with 
BiPAP.  
 
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 ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a ventilator (E0466).
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the two hearing aid exams and the two office visits to be 
provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the two hearing aid exams and the two office visits . You say that you want 
to go out-of-network because it is close to your home, good service, and conducive to adjustment, cleaning, and 
maintenance after being fitted. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services are not covered out-of-
network. 
 
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 two hearing aid exams and the two office visits. We found no exception that 
would require the Plan to pre-approve the two hearing aid exams and the two office visits. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the two hearing aid exams and the two office visits to be 
provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
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 an IRF admission 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 that the enrollees medical problems are stable and there are no complex nursing or 
rehabilitation needs. 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: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve home health skilled nursing services. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve home health services. You say that the services are necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the services are not medically necessary.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that home health care services may be covered if it is 
medically necessary for the enrollee to receive skilled nursing or therapy. A doctor must certify the need for 
home health care services. 
 
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 home health services. Our reviewer 
says that the services are not medically reasonable and necessary. Our physician reviewer found skilled nursing 
services were not medically necessary for a chronically ill stable 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 home health services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve home health skilled nursing services.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Watchman implantation procedure. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the services. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says there is only one opinion, and there is no indication that the enrollee can't use oral 
anticoagulants. 
 
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 services. Our reviewer says that the 
requested services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer 
found that at issue is the medical necessity of implanting a LAAC device in this patient, who has had a single 
episode of atrial fibrillation, occurring two years ago, related to alcohol intake. There is no apparent 
contraindication to warfarin use according to the records. As such, guidelines would not support implantation 
of a LAAC in this setting. In summary, LAAC placement would not be considered reasonable or medically 
necessary in this patient's clinical 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 the services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve the Watchman implantation procedure.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the radiofrequency ablations at levels L4-L5 and L5-S1.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the radiofrequency ablations. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 
the enrollee is not restricted from receiving the service, only that the service will not be covered by their 
Medicare. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that for each covered spinal region no more than two 
(2) radiofrequency sessions will be reimbursed per rolling 12 months.  
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Specifically, the enrollee was previously reimbursed for to lumbar 
region radiofrenecy session within the last rolling 12 months on April 20, 2023, and May 4, 2023. Based on 
this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the radiofrequency ablations have not been 
met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the radiofrequency ablations at levels 
L4-L5 and L5-S1.
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 are appealing with supporting records. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says that the request SNF admission is 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 considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee has had a significant decline in physical functioning. The enrollee does 
require skilled therapy services on a daily basis at a skilled nursing facility to restore function and avoid further 
decline or complications. Therefore, admission to a skilled nursing facility for rehabilitation services is 
medically appropriate.  
 
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: 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 IRF services. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the requirements for an IRF admission.  
 
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 that the enrollees medical problems are stable and there are no complex nursing or 
rehabilitation needs. 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: 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 these services are medically necessary for this 
enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the criteria for coverage of 
these services. 
 
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 that the complexity of the enrollees nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does 
not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. 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. There is not a reasonable expectation 
that this patient will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy program 
provided in an IRF. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different level of care. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a K3 foot and microprocessor knee. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the services. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says this request exceeds the enrollee's needs. 
 
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 services. Our reviewer says that the 
requested services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer 
found that the provided records for this case indicate that the enrollee is walking with a walker. The records do 
not clarify that the enrollee would be able to progress to the point of ambulating without the assistive device 
with the requested prosthetics. The records do not fully support the necessity of the K3 level components. No 
physical therapy notes are provided to support the need for the K3 components over K2 components. 
 
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 services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a K3 foot and microprocessor knee.
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 an LTACH admission is not medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's needs would be best met at 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 that the documentation does not support that LTACH services are medically 
appropriate. The enrollee is receiving the appropriate care in the current acute care setting as provided by the 
Health Plan. 
 We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for inpatient admission. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for acute inpatient hospital care. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says that the records show that the enrollee was in the hospital for the same or 
related problem in the last 30 days. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that inpatient hospital care is covered when the doctor 
expects the patient to need hospital care that crosses at least two midnights. In rare and unusual cases, 
consideration may be given to inpatient hospital care when the hospital stay does not cross two midnights or 
more. 
 
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 acute inpatient hospital care. Our reviewer 
says that the documentation supports that the criteria for inpatient payment are met in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found that the review indicates that the enrollee was evaluated in the emergency department (ED) on 
12/13/23 and found to have bilateral pneumonia and a right foot cellulitis. Her white blood cell count was 12.5. 
She was treated with Duo-neb and started on Iv Levaquin. The enrollee was admitted to telemetry and was 
evaluated by Infectious Disease. The enrollee continued on IV antibiotics and insulin therapy for glycemic 
control. The review has determined that the record showed that at the time of inpatient admission it was 
reasonable for the admitting physician to expect that the patient's necessary hospital care (including earlier ED 
and/or observation care) would span two midnights with supporting documentation of the patients history and 
comorbidities, signs and symptoms, current medical needs, and risk of an adverse event. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of acute inpatient hospital care have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
has to pay for inpatient admission.  
 
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.