Persius/imr-appeals huggingface dataset:
Summary Reviewer 3 
 
The parent of a 16-year-old male enrollee has requested reimbursement for immunoassay for 
analyte other than infectious agent antibody or infectious agent antigen; quantitative, not otherwise 
specified and adalimumab on 8/6/21. The Health Insurer has denied this request indicating that the 
service and medication at issue were investigational for the treatment of the enrollees ulcerative 
colitis. The physician reviewer found that the use of testing for Humira drug levels and anti-Humira 
antibody levels is supported by guidelines in this clinical setting. In this case, the patient had 
symptoms of active ulcerative colitis despite being on Humira. The American Gastroenterological 
Association (AGA) guideline on therapeutic drug monitoring in inflammatory bowel disease 
suggests reactive therapeutic drug monitoring to guide treatment changes in adults with active 
inflammatory bowel disease treated with anti-TNF agents. The guideline suggests target trough 
concentrations of 7.5 mg/mL for adalimumab. Drug concentration and anti-drug antibody levels 
should be checked if there is a loss of response to an anti-TNF medication such as Humira, 
allowing for a subsequent change in management including a switch within drug classes, assessing 
for inflammation, or increasing the dose. The AGA guidelines for the management of ulcerative 
colitis also recommend drug level testing, noting that the patient with nonresponse or loss of 
response to therapy should be assessed with therapeutic drug monitoring to identify the reason for 
lack of response and whether to optimize the existing therapy or to select an alternate therapy. In 
this case, given that the patients symptoms that were consistent with active or uncontrolled 
ulcerative colitis, he was at risk for complications from ulcerative colitis such as toxic megacolon, 
hospitalization, need for surgery, or colonic dysplasia leading to colorectal cancer. In this clinical 
setting,  testing  for  Humira  drug  level  and  anti-Humira  antibody  level  was  appropriate  per 
guidelines for the assessment of whether the patients Humira dose should be increased or changed 
to an alternative therapy. As the guidelines do not recommend any alternative therapy, the testing 
at issue was likely to have been more beneficial than a standard approach of changing Humira to 
another therapy, which could be ineffective and result in entirely uncontrolled disease and severe 
complications such as hospitalization, surgery, and toxic megacolon. Therefore, immunoassay for 
analyte other than infectious agent antibody or infectious agent antigen; quantitative, not otherwise 
specified, and adalimumab on 8/6/21 was likely to have been more beneficial for treatment of the 
patient's condition than any available standard therapy.
Summary Reviewer 1


A 61-year-old female enrollee has requested coverage for sacroiliac (SI) joint fusion. The Health Insurer has denied this request indicating that the requested services are considered investigational for treatment of the enrollees left hip and buttock pain. The physician reviewer found that the requested services are likely to be more beneficial for treatment of the patients medical condition than any available standard therapy. The evidence based peer-reviewed literature support SI joint fusion in this clinical setting. Polly and colleagues concluded in their study that minimally invasive SI joint fusion using triangular titanium implants was more effective than nonsurgical management at one year in relieving pain, improving function, and improving quality of life in patients with SI joint dysfunction caused by degenerative sacroiliitis or SI joint disruptions. The authors noted that pain, disability, and quality of life also improved after crossover from nonsurgical to surgical treatment. The International Society for Advancement of Spine Surgery (ISASS) policy statement for minimally invasive SI joint fusion provide specific indications for surgery. The criteria include: significant SI joint pain or significant limitations in activities of daily living because of SI joint pain; SI joint pain confirmed by at least three positive SI joint provocative tests; confirmation of the SI joint as a pain generator with at least 75% decrease in pain following fluoroscopically guided diagnostic intra-articular SI joint block in the immediate post-injection period; failure to respond to at least six months of non-surgical treatment including medications, rest, physical therapy, and SI joint steroid injection or rhizotomy; and, additional or alternative diagnoses that could be responsible for the patients ongoing pain or disability have been clearly considered, investigated and ruled-out. In this case, the patient presents with chronic left hip/buttocks pain with significant functional limitation. Detailed evidence of at least six months of reasonable and/or comprehensive non-operative treatment protocol trial and failure has been submitted. Clinical exam findings have documented significant tenderness at the SI joint with six positive SI joint provocative tests. There is radiographic evidence of bilateral joint arthrosis with joint space narrowing. There is no imaging evidence of lumbosacral spine neural compression pathology. Multiple bilateral SI joint injections have produced 90% pain relief. The peer-reviewed supports the requested SI joint fusion as likely to be more beneficial for treatment of the patients medical condition than any available standard therapy in this clinical setting. Based upon the information set forth above, the requested services are likely to be more beneficial for treatment of the patients medical condition than any available standard therapy. The Health Insurers denial should be overturned.
Summary Reviewer 2


A 61-year-old female enrollee has requested coverage for sacroiliac (SI) joint fusion. The Health Insurer has denied this request indicating that the requested services are considered investigational for treatment of the enrollees left hip and buttock pain. The physician reviewer found that the North American Spine Societys recommendations include that percutaneous sacroiliac joint fusion should only be considered when all inclusion criteria have been met. The authors state that due to the relatively moderate evidence, it is particularly critical that inclusion criteria are scrutinized and patient selection is executed with vigilance. In this case the patient meets North American Spine Society criteria for the proposed sacroiliac joint fusion. She has had at least 75 percent reduction of pain for the expected duration of the anesthetic used following an image-guided, contrast-enhanced intra-articular SIJ injection on two separate occasions. In addition, the postoperative CT scan on 11/5/15 shows no ongoing neural compression and no central canal or foraminal stenosis on the postoperative CT scan. This patient meets all NASS criteria for the proposed surgery. For these reasons, sacroiliac joint fusion surgery is likely to be more beneficial for treatment of the patients medical condition than any available standard therapy. Based upon the information set forth above, the requested services are likely to be more beneficial for treatment of the patients medical condition than any available standard therapy. The Health Insurers denial should be overturned.
Summary Reviewer 2
A 55-year-old female enrollee has requested authorization and coverage for botulinum toxin type A (Botox) treatment and ongoing treatment. The Health Insurer has denied this request indicating that the requested services are considered investigational for treatment of the enrollees medical condition.  The physician reviewer found that ongoing Botox treatment is likely to be more beneficial for treatment of the patients medical condition than any available standard therapy. In this case, the patient presents with a long history of migraine headaches dating to childhood. The records indicate that before starting Botox she had a baseline headache frequency of 16 to 24 per month, which is consistent with the diagnosis of chronic migraine. In addition, the patient has had a marked improvement documented with Botox treatments for more than 10 years. In sum, Botox treatment for chronic migraine is indicated for this patient and ongoing treatments are likely to be more beneficial for treatment of the patients medical condition than any available standard therapy. Based upon the information set forth above, the requested services are likely to be more beneficial for treatment of the patients medical condition than any available standard therapy. The Health Insurers denial should be overturned.
Summary Reviewer 

The patient is a 47-year-old female who has requested authorization and coverage for Neulasta. She underwent chemotherapy for breast cancer. The patient has requested authorization and coverage for Neulasta. The Health Insurer has denied this request and reported that the requested medication is not medically necessary for the treatment of this patient. This denial is the subject of this appeal and determination. The physician reviewer found that the current medical evidence supports the requested medication in this clinical setting. Neulasta has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to decrease the incidence of infection (as manifested by febrile neutropenia) in patients with non-myeloid malignancies receiving myelosuppressive cancer chemotherapy associated with a clinically significant incidence of febrile neutropenia. The combination of Adriamycin and cyclophosphamide carries a high risk of neutropenic fever. The standard of care is administration in a dose dense fashion every two weeks with growth factor support with Neulasta. Therefore, Neulasta is medically necessary for the treatment of this patient.
Summary Reviewer 1

A 62-year-old male enrollee has requested authorization and coverage for patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure. The Health Insurer has denied this request and reported that the requested services are investigational for the treatment of the enrollees medical condition. The physician reviewer found that this patient had a recent transient ischemic attack while flying on an airplane. He was evaluated and has no other reason for transient ischemic attack other than the patent foramen ovale. In addition, the development of the transient ischemic attack symptoms while flying a high altitude makes the patent foramen ovale an even more likely etiology of the symptoms as right heart pressures increase at high altitudes, and the risk of transient deep vein thrombosis is higher as well. This combination (occult deep vein thrombosis with elevated right heart pressures because of lower air pressures) makes the likelihood of paradoxical embolism from increased right to left shunting significantly higher in the setting of a large patent foramen ovale. This adds further credence to the clinical suspicion of the patent foramen ovale being the culprit pathology of the transient ischemic attack in this case. Recent data and meta-analyses suggest that patent foramen ovale closure prevents recurrent crytogenic stroke better than medical therapy alone in patients with no other suspected cause of the stroke and likely transient ischemic attacks as well. Therefore, patent foramen ovale closure is likely to be more beneficial than any available standard therapy.
Summary Reviewer 2

A 62-year-old male enrollee has requested authorization and coverage for patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure. The Health Insurer has denied this request and reported that the requested services are investigational for the treatment of the enrollees medical condition. The physician reviewer found that this patient presented with a transient ischemic attack in the setting of reported hypertensive urgency. There are no other verified transient ischemic attacks and a reportedly normal head computed tomography (CT) scan. In patients with transient ischemic attacks and patent foramen ovales, transcatheter closure has been demonstrated to be of mild benefit only in younger patients without another potential source of transient ischemic attack, such as hypertensive urgency, and mainly in patients with transient ischemic attacks despite antiplatelet medication. This patient does not fit those criteria since there is another potential source and his age is greater than 60. In sum, patent foramen ovale closure is not likely to be more beneficial than any available standard therapy.
Summary Reviewer 


A 56-year-old male enrollee has requested authorization and coverage for uvulopalatopharyngoplasty for obstructive sleep apnea.  The Health Insurer has denied this request indicating that the requested services are not medically necessary for treatment of the enrollees medical condition. The physician reviewer found the submitted documentation fails to demonstrate the medical necessity of the requested services.  This patient has mild obstructive sleep apnea and snoring.  It is noted that his obstructive sleep apnea is severe when in the supine position.  There is no documentation of retropalatal obstruction or of redundant palatal soft tissue.  While uvulopalatopharyngoplasty is a common surgical procedure for treatment of obstructive sleep apnea, its success rate as a stand-alone surgery is low.  Its success rate in conjunction with nasal surgery is not much greater.  The fact that apnea-hypopnea index is greater when in the supine position does not determine that there is retropalatal airway obstruction.  All told, the requested uvulopalatopharyngoplasty is not medically indicated for the treatment of this patient.  Therefore, the requested services are not medically necessary for treatment of the patients medical condition. The Health Insurers denial should be upheld.
Summary Reviewer 


A 54-year-old female enrollee has requested reimbursement for inpatient hospitalization provided from 3/31/17 through 4/07/17. The Health Insurer has denied this request indicating that the services at issue were not medically necessary for treatment of the enrollee, who sustained injuries when she fell off a horse. The physician reviewer found that this patient presented status post a traumatic fall from a horse resulting in severe back pain. Clinical examination findings were consistent with imaging evidence of L1 and L3 acute compression fractures. She had severe pain that was not controlled with oral medications. She was admitted for inpatient care for pain control and observation on 3/31/17. She was placed on bed rest with bracing ordered. She continued to require intravenous medication due to inadequate relief with oral medications. She was very limited in her activity due to severe pain. Given the failure of closed treatment with bracing and continued severe pain with associated functional limitations, she underwent L1 and L3 vertebroplasty on 4/04/17. Following this procedure, she was able to ambulate with physical therapy, and oral pain medications provided adequate control as of 4/07/17. She was discharged to home on 4/07/17 with home health services. Evidence-based medical guidelines support hospitalization for parental narcotics and inability to manage basic activities of daily living at home, and additionally support a three-day best practice length of stay following vertebroplasty. Continued inpatient stay is supported until acceptable patient status for the next level of care is achieved, including pain is adequately managed on oral medications, and activity levels are at baseline or acceptable. Therefore, inpatient hospitalization provided from 3/31/17 through 4/07/17 was medically necessary for the treatment of this patient. Therefore, the services at issue were medically necessary for treatment of the patients medical condition. The Health Insurers denial should be overturned.
Summary Reviewer 1

A 38-year-old female has requested reimbursement for fecal calprotectin testing performed on 11/22/17. The Health Insurer has denied this request indicating that the services at issue were considered investigational for evaluation of the enrollees ulcerative pan-colitis. The physician reviewer found that Calprotectin is a zinc and calcium binding protein that is derived mostly from neutrophils and monocytes. It can be detected in tissue samples, body fluids, and stools, making it a potentially valuable marker of neutrophil activity. Fecal calprotectin levels are increased in intestinal inflammation and may be useful for distinguishing inflammatory from noninflammatory causes of chronic diarrhea. An additional potential role of fecal calprotectin is in the monitoring of patients with colitis to predict whether they are going to have a disease flare and to distinguish in symptomatic patients whether the symptoms are due to inflammation or to functional disease. In this patients case, she had a recent colonoscopy showing endoscopic healing, and she had no complaints relative to her colitis. There is a lack of support for the services at issue in this setting. Thus, fecal calprotectin testing performed on 11/22/17 was not likely to have been of greater benefit than other methods of evaluating this patient. Based upon the information set forth above, the services at issue were not likely to be more beneficial for evaluation of the patients medical condition than any available standard therapy. The Health Insurers denial should be upheld.
Summary Reviewer 3

A 38-year-old female has requested reimbursement for fecal calprotectin testing performed on 11/22/17. The Health Insurer has denied this request indicating that the services at issue were considered investigational for evaluation of the enrollees ulcerative pan-colitis. The physician reviewer found that the use of fecal calprotectin is supported for management of patients with ulcerative colitis to prevent invasive interventions such as colonoscopy. A randomized, prospective, controlled trial by Lasson and colleagues evaluating patients with ulcerative colitis showed lower relapse rate than control when using calprotectin to direct management with medications. Another prospective study by Costa and colleagues showed that unlike in Crohns disease, fecal calprotectin was sensitive and specific for prediction of relapse in ulcerative colitis, making it a useful tool for non-invasive monitoring. In this patients case, the test allowed for assessment of ulcerative colitis disease activity without colonoscopy. For these reasons, fecal calprotectin testing performed on 11/22/17 was likely to have been more effective than other methods of evaluating this patient. Based upon the information set forth above, the services at issue were likely to be more beneficial for evaluation of the patients medical condition than any available standard therapy. The Health Insurers denial should be overturned.
Summary Reviewer 

The patient is a 30-year-old female with moderate-severe rheumatoid arthritis. The patient has requested authorization and coverage for Enbrel SureClick. The Health Insurer has denied this request and reported that the requested medication is not medically necessary for the treatment of this patient. The physician reviewer found that according to the 2015 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis, in established rheumatoid arthritis, aIf disease activity remains moderate or high despite DMARD monotherapy, the recommendation is to use combination traditional DMARDs or add a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) or a non-TNF biologic or tofacitinib (all choices with or without methotrexate, in no particular order of preference), rather than continuing DMARD monotherapy alone.a In this case, the records document a history of moderate-severe rheumatoid arthritis. In addition, she has failed DMARD therapy. She previously was treated with methotrexate, sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine, with uncontrolled disease. It is therefore appropriate to consider TNFi therapy in this case based on the guidelines. She was placed on the TNFi, Humira, which was ineffective. She was then placed on an alternate TNFi, Enbrel SureClick. On 7/29/20, office visit notes indicate that Enbrel SureClick was helping to control rheumatoid arthritis. There is sufficient support for the requested medication in this clinical setting. Therefore, Enbrel SureClick is medically necessary for the treatment of this patient.
Summary Reviewer 2

A 43-year-old female enrollee has requested reimbursement for the blood testing provided on 1/17/17. The Health Insurer has denied this request indicating that the testing at issue is considered investigational for evaluation of the enrollees cardiovascular risk. The physician reviewer found that the use of the advanced lipoprotein testing with measurement of low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol particle numbers remains controversial. While some providers have advocated for its use, the American College of Cardiology (ACC) guidelines do not support its use, recommending instead standard risk assessment protocols and standard lipid profile testing (Stone, et al). The ACC moved away from specific target goals of LDL in their most recent guidelines, based on review of outcome studies. Lloyd-Jones and colleagues provided an expert consensus update from the ACC and it does not mention the use of advanced lipid testing. Overall, the guidelines do not establish a strong recommendation for use of the advanced lipid profiles at this time. Thus, the blood testing provided on 1/17/17 was not likely to be more beneficial for evaluation of the patients medical condition than any available standard therapy. Based upon the information set forth above, the testing at issue was not likely to be more beneficial for evaluation of the patients medical condition than any available standard therapy. The Health Insurers denial should be upheld.
Summary Reviewer 1 
 
A 24-year-old female enrollee has requested authorization and coverage for lower esophageal 
myotomy, transoral (peroral endoscopic myotomy) (POEM) and one inpatient day. The Health 
Plan has denied this request indicating that the requested service is investigational for the 
treatment of the enrollees medical condition. The physician reviewer found  that there is 
sufficient  support  for  the  requested  service  in  this  clinical  setting.  The  American 
Gastroenterological Association best-practice guideline states that if the expertise is available, 
POEM should be considered as treatment option comparable with laparoscopic Heller myotomy 
for any of the achalasia syndromes. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy has 
recently published a statement based on available evidence, stating that POEM is a potential 
attractive option for the treatment of achalasia that offers a minimally invasive endoscopic 
approach to myotomy with the potential for a durable response to therapy. Clinical studies and 
trials  have  shown  comparable  efficacy  with  surgery  when  expertise  in  POEM  is  available. 
However,  despite  comparable  efficacy,  POEM  is  significantly  less  invasive  than  surgical 
intervention, resulting in less postoperative pain and a more rapid recovery. In this patient with 
symptoms including dysphagia and regurgitation, as well as failure of pneumatic dilation, the use 
of POEM is supported by current medical literature and guidelines. Therefore, lower esophageal 
myotomy, transoral POEM and one inpatient day is likely to be more beneficial than any available 
standard therapy.