Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve home health skilled nursing (G0299). 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve home health services. You say that this is medically 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 the 
documentation doesnt support that you require additional skilled nursing services to provide treatment that is 
medically necessary. You do not require additional skilled nursing services to effectively provide treatment, 
care, and/or services in order to improve your condition, perform a maintenance program to maintain your 
condition and/or prevent deterioration. 
 
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 (G0299).
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 would like reconsideration based on the records 
submitted. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested IRF services are not medically necessary.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical, and rehabilitation needs does not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The enrollee's 
medical 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 therapy and/or 
occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. There is not a 
reasonable expectation that the erollee 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: 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 cannot move and you are not strong enough to 
use your walker. You say that you were independent at home previously . 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 you do not require the intensity of services provided at an IRF.  Specifically, you 
are not shown to require fifteen hours per week of rehabilitative services and regular physician 
evaluation.  Your care needs can be met at a lower level of care.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee meets the full criteria for inpatient acute 
rehabilitation verses a lesser level of care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's chronic 
medical conditions are stable and do not require frequent 3 times weekly medical visits or interventions.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The 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. It 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 acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that this course of treatment is necessary to help the 
enrollee return to their daily activities and regain their independence. You say that acute inpatient rehabilitation 
can provide the enrollee with the necessary multidisciplinary support, including physical and occupational 
therapy to improve their functional abilities and restore their independence. 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 complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation can be 
provided in a lower level of care and does not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary 
approach to rehabilitation 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 pneumatic compressor, segmental home model 
without calibrated gradient pressure (E0651), segmental pneumatic appliance for use with pneumatic 
compressor, full leg (E0667), and segmental gradient pressure pneumatic appliance (E0673). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a pneumatic compressor, segmental pneumatic appliance, and segmental 
gradient pressure pneumatic appliance. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this request 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 a pneumatic compressor, segmental 
pneumatic appliance, and segmental gradient pressure pneumatic appliance. Our reviewer says that this request 
is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the patient is being prescribed a pneumatic 
compression device for the prevention of lower extremity deep venous thrombosis post-operatively. Per the 
guideline, this is indicated in patients with lymphedema or chronic venous insufficiency who have failed to 
respond to conservative treatment. The patient does not have these diagnoses. E0676 is used only for the 
prevention of venous thrombosis, but this device is not being requested in this case. 
 
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 pneumatic compressor, segmental pneumatic appliance, and segmental 
gradient pressure pneumatic appliance have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pre-approve a pneumatic compressor, segmental home model without calibrated gradient pressure (E0651), 
segmental pneumatic appliance for use with pneumatic compressor, full leg (E0667), and segmental gradient 
pressure pneumatic appliance (E0673).
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Botox with associated esophagogastroduodenoscopy 
(EGD). 
 
  You asked the Plan to pre-approve Botox with associated EGD. You say that the enrollee is unable to tolerate 
Reglan as a prokinetic for medical management of delayed gastric emptying. You say that the next best 
alternative would be to provide the enrollee with an upper endoscopy and inject botulinum toxin into the 
pylorus to assist with gastric emptying. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says Botox with EGD is not 
medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare may pay for unlabeled uses for FDA-
approved drugs if they are medically accepted as safe and effective or appropriate for the particular use.  
 
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 Botox with associated EGD. Our 
reviewer says that Botox with associated EGD is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that 
the requested use of Botox is not FDA-approved. Botox is also not supported by one of the major drug 
compendia or by clinical research. Furthermore, gastroparesis is not a medically accepted indication for the use 
of Botox injections. Therefore, the esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is not covered.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Botox with associated EGD have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve Botox with associated esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD).
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 is still requiring assistance going to the 
bathroom and walking with a walker. You say that the enrollee lives with their daughter who works full time 
and will not be able to assist the enrollee during the day. 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve genicular nerve branch injection. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve genicular nerve branch injection. You say that the enrollee is suffering from 
chronic knee pain that has a significantly impaired her quality of life. Previous conservative treatment, 
including medication and physical therapy has provided minimal relief. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says this does not meet the criteria for coverage. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that items and services that are not medically 
necessary are not covered.  
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve genicular nerve branch injection. 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 nerve radiofrequency ablation are 
considered investigational and not medically necessary for the treatment of chronic knee pain, including, but not limited to any of the following: degenerative joint disease; osteoarthritis of the knee; as a treatment prior to 
knee replacement; as a treatment following knee replacement; or as a treatment for individuals who are not 
candidates for knee replacement 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 genicular nerve branch injection have not been met. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pre-approve genicular nerve branch injection.
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 of the denied IRF 
admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says IRF care is not reasonable and necessary.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical, and rehabilitation needs do not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. 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 records support a need for physical and/or 
occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. 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. 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 the enrollee needs therapy and feels its a life or death 
matter. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's condition does not meet all the requirements 
for inpatient rehabilitation admission. The Plan says services may be provided at a lower level of care.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The 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. It 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve gastroenterologist services to be provided by an out-of-
network (OON) provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve an OON provider. You say that the requested clinic has the only doctors 
specialized enough to treat the enrollee's rare condition.  The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that there 
are in-network providers available and has provided a list of options. 
 
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 provider at issue in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. 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 gastroenterologist services. Our reviewer says that seeing an OON provider 
is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that appropriate specialty expertise is identified and 
available in network for evaluation and treatment of the enrollee's diagnosed type 3 achalasia. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of gastroenterologist services have not been met.  
 
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 gastroenterologist services. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pre-approve gastroenterologist services to be provided by an OON provider.
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Neulasta. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve Neulasta. You say that the medication is medically necessary for the 
enrollee's treatment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the notes do not show that the enrollee has 
trialed or failed the preferred medications. 
 
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 Neulasta. Our reviewer says that the 
medication is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found based on the medical records provided 
there is no indication that the enrollee has tried and failed the preferred drugs Ziextenso, Fylnetra or Nyvepria. 
Based on the medical records provided and the Medicare-approved major drug compendia there is no 
indication that the Plan's required drugs would be less effective or likely have adverse effects for the enrollee. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Neulasta have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Neulasta.