Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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 requested IRF services are necessary because you 
live alone, have no one to help you, and you urgently need therapy. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says the notes do not show that your care specifically requires the involvement of a doctor in the field of 
Rehabilitation Medicine; the notes do not show that you have complex care needs that require a coordinated 
team approach; the notes do not show 
that you must have an intensive therapy program (3 hours a day, at least 5 days a week) in order to improve 
self-care functioning.   
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 does not require an 
acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. Your medical problems 
are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. You do 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 you 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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve sacroplasty (0200T). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve sacroplasty. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says sacroplasty is unproven and 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 sacroplasty. Our reviewer says that the 
requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found sacroplasty is experimental for sacral insufficiency fractures. 
 
   
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of sacroplasty have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve sacroplasty (0200T).
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve home health physical therapy. 
 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 enrollee 
does not have documented ongoing home health physical therapy needs. The enrollee is functioning at a level 
commiserate with 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 home health services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve home health physical therapy.
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 CGM. You say that the services should be covered as the enrollee 
disagrees with the denial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the items denied correctly as the 
enrollee does not meet the clinical requirements to be approved. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that therapeutic CGMs are considered medically 
reasonable and necessary when prescribed in accordance with their FDA indications for enrollees with diabetes 
who are insulin treated or who have a history of problematic hypoglycemia, and have had an in-person visit 
with their treating physician to evaluate their diabetes control and determine whether the criteria for coverage 
have been met. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The documentation indicates that the enrollee does not have diabetes, 
use insulin or have a history of problematic hypoglycemia, had an in-person visit with their treating physician 
to evaluate their diabetes control and to determine whether the criteria for coverage have been met.  Based on 
this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the CGM have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a continuous glucose monitor (CGM).
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve buprenorphine/naloxone. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the medication. You say that you are requesting reconsideration of the 
denied medication for the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the medication is not covered 
as a medical benefit under the Plan. 
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare Part B generally does not pay for self-
administered drugs. The self-administered drugs requested here are not among the types which are covered by 
Medicare Part B. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve buprenorphine/naloxone.  
 
Benefits for the medication may be available under Medicare Part D. Contact the Plan that administers Part D 
benefits for further information concerning any benefits and appeal rights.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve genicular nerve block. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve genicular nerve block. You say that the sooner the enrollee can get pain 
relief, the better. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this procedure 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 genicular nerve block. Our reviewer 
says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found this is considered experimental. 
 
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 block have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve genicular nerve block.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Guardant360 CDx liquid profiling (0242U). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Guardant360 CDx. You say that this test is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says this test is not medically necessary as there is no explanation as to why the 
tissue-based biopsy provided for the enrollee is insufficient. 
 
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 Guardant360 CDx. Our reviewer says 
that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the note from medical oncologist states that Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) 
from tissue will be ordered, and there is no documentation why NGS in not able to be performed from tissue 
leaving a need for liquid profiling test.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Guardant360 CDx have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve Guardant360 CDx liquid profiling (0242U).
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 an IRF admission is medically necessary for the 
enrollee to regain maximum function. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an IRF admission is not 
medically necessary, but skilled therapies as an outpatient or at home with home healthcare may be approved 
upon request.  
 
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 and 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 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: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve triamcinolone acetonide. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the medication. You say that the requested drug is medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the medication is not covered as a medical benefit under the Plan. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare Part B generally does not pay for self-
administered drugs. The self-administered drugs requested here are not among the types which are covered by 
Medicare Part B. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve triamcinolone acetonide.  Benefits for the medication may be available under Medicare Part D. Contact the Plan that administers Part D 
benefits for further information concerning any benefits and appeal rights.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you feel weak and you need to regain strength in 
your leg. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you do not meet Medicare guidelines for services in an 
inpatient rehabilitation facility.  
 
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. 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.  
 
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 Intracept procedure 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve an Intracept procedure. You say that the enrollee would benefit from this 
procedure. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this procedure 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 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 are no modic changes on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and the enrollee 
has spinal stenosis in the foraminal regions. 
 
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 Intracept procedure have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve an Intracept procedure
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the PrismRA test (81479) provided on June 22, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the PrismRA test. You say that this testing is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the requested test does not meet requirement for approval. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that molecular diagnostic laboratory tests are subject 
to the MolDX application, assessment, and approval process.  
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The DEX database shows that PrismRA is not covered. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the PrismRA test have not been met. Therefore, 
we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the PrismRA test (81479) provided on June 22, 2023.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Toric lens. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the Toric lens. You say that you feel the Plan should make a partial payment 
for the Toric lenses. You say that your benefit states that you would pay for additional vision correcting lenses.  
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the service is not a covered benefit. 
 
The Plan covers all items that Medicare covers. Medicare rules say that if an enrollee receives an A-C IOL 
during cataract surgery, the enrollee will be responsible for the difference in cost between the A-C IOL and a 
conventional IOL.  
 
While an A-C IOL may be appropriate for you, neither the Plan nor Medicare covers the astigmatism-
correcting feature of an IOL. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Toric lens.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the x-ray of the lumbosacral spine (72100), the x-ray of the 
cervical spine (72040) and the office visit (99203) provided by a chiropractor on April 14, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the x-ray of the lumbosacral spine (72100), the x-ray of the cervical spine 
(72040), the office visit (99203). You say that you have been going to your chiropractor since April 14, 2023 
and have been paying $20 each visit. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the only covered chiropractic 
service is manual manipulation of the spine. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that the only chiropractic service Medicare covers is 
manual manipulation of the spine to correct a subluxation.   

The records show that the service at issue is not manual manipulation of the spine. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pay for the x-ray of the lumbosacral spine (72100), the x-ray of the cervical spine 
(72040) and the office visit (99203) provided by a chiropractor on April 14, 2023.
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 IRF care is necessary. 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 your nursing, medical, and rehabilitation needs do not require an 
acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. You do 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 you 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: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay more for pontic and retainer crowns (D6245, D6740) provided 
on July 13, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay more for the dental services. You say that the services should be covered as you 
disagree with the denial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says your benefit for the requested item or 
service has already been exhausted. 
 
Medicare generally does not cover dental services. However, the Plan offers a dental benefit that exceeds 
Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plans coverage rules apply in this case. 
 
 
  Though the Plan offers a dental benefit in excess of Medicare coverage, certain limitations apply. The record 
shows your benefit for the requested item or service was exhausted on date of service July 13, 2023. Therefore, 
we decided that the Plan does not have to pay more for pontic and retainer crowns (D6245, D6740) provided 
on July 13, 2023.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve use of Durolane. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Durolane. You say that the enrollee does not feel that they are able to 
participate in physical therapy due to comorbidities. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee 
has not tried physical therapy, home exercises, or low-impact therapy such as aquatic therapy which should be 
tried before the injection can be considered. 
 
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 Durolane. Our reviewer says that the 
enrollee does not meet criteria for this use of Durolane. Our physician reviewer found a review of the current 
medical literature indicates that viscosupplementation therapy is considered to be reasonable and necessary 
under certain conditions: - Trial and failure or contraindication of at least 3 months of conservative therapy 
- Failure of or contraindication to intra-articular glucocorticoid injections 
- For patients who have responded to a prior series, a repeat series of viscosupplement therapy is 
considered reasonable and necessary when all of the following are met: 
~ Patient continues to meet initial criteria, symptoms have recurred, 
~ Patient has experienced improvement in pain and functional capacity following the previous 
series of injections, 
~ At least 6 months have elapsed since the prior series of injections. 
 
In this case, the enrollee has not completed at least 3 months of conservative therapy (physical therapy/home 
exercises). The requested use of Durolane is not medically reasonable or necessary. The documentation does 
not support that the Durolane is safe and effective 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 Durolane have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve use of Durolane.