Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to provide a therapeutic continuous glucose monitor sensor kit.
You asked the Plan to provide a therapeutic continuous glucose monitor sensor kit. You say that since using a CGM the enrollee's A1c has improved and he is more engaged in health care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee is not using insulin three or more times per day nor using an insulin pump.
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that therapeutic CGMs are considered medically reasonable and necessary for enrollees with diabetes who perform blood glucose testing at least four times per day, use insulin with at least three daily injections, and require frequent self-adjustment of insulin dosage based on the blood glucose testing results. We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The documentation indicates that the enrollee does not use insulin with at least three daily injections. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of a therapeutic continuous glucose monitor sensor kit have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to provide a therapeutic continuous glucose monitor sensor kit.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve these services. You say that you disagree with the denial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services are not medically necessary.
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that MRIs are covered only when they are medically 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 these services. Our reviewer says that the services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has ALK-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The MRI of the brain performed three months prior was negative and there are no neurologic symptoms. The repeat MRI is therefore not reasonable or medically necessary. We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of these services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain.
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 lives alone and needs this to get their strength back. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the stay 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 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 has a past medical history of pneumonia, congestive hear failure, hypertension and a stroke and are living at home receiving wound care for bilateral lower extremity wounds. Medical conditions 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. The enrollee does require physical and occupational therapy but there is no documented need for an intensive rehabilitation program. Medically necessary services can be provided in a different level of care. There is not a reasonable expectation that this enrollee will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF. We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the domiciliary visit provided on November 23, 2020 by an out of network (OON) provider.

You asked the Plan to pay for the domiciliary visit. You say that the service was medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says no prior authorization was obtained.

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 pay for care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving emergencies, out of area urgent care and pre-approved care.

The requested provider in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan did not pre-approve the item/service at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay for these items/services.


Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the domiciliary visit provided on November 23, 2020 by an out of network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that the enrollee needs more therapy before they are able to return home. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the stay 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 daily skilled services are not necessary. Our physician reviewer found there are no identifiable skilled nursing service needs. There are identifiable skilled therapy service needs. The enrollee does not require skilled nursing or therapy services on a daily basis. This enrollee does not meet severity of illness or intensity of service criteria for an inpatient basis in a SNF setting. We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of SNF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a therapeutic continuous glucose monitor.

You asked the Plan to pre-approve a therapeutic continuous glucose monitor. You say that this requested item is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the criteria for a therapeutic continuous glucose monitor have not been met.

The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that therapeutic CGMs are considered medically reasonable and necessary for enrollees with diabetes who perform blood glucose testing at least four times per day, use insulin with at least three daily injections, and require frequent self-adjustment of insulin dosage based on the blood glucose testing results.

We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The documentation indicates that the enrollee does not insulin with at least three daily injections. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of a therapeutic continuous glucose monitor have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a therapeutic continuous glucose monitor.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services.

You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that you would like reconsideration because the LTACH admission is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says LTACHs do not provide clinical advantage over non-LTACH acute care hospitals.

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 appropriate care at the present acute care hospital. The enrollee does not require services at the LTACH that are not available at the acute care hospital where he is currently receiving care. There are no services available at the LTACH that the enrollee requires that are not available at the health care setting being offered 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: 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 care is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested IRF care 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 the enrollee does not require the intensity of services provided at an IRF. Specifically, the enrollee is not shown to be able to perform 15 hours per week of rehabilitative services or to require regular physician evaluation.
The enrollee's care needs can be met at a lower level of care, such as at a skilled nursing facility.
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 replacement prosthetic leg with an advanced foot feature.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a replacement prosthetic leg with an advanced foot feature. You say that the requested replacement prosthetic leg with an advanced foot feature is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet criteria for the requested replacement prosthetic leg with an advanced foot feature.
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 replacement prosthetic leg with an advanced foot feature. Our reviewer says that the enrollee does not meet criteria for the requested replacement prosthetic leg with an advanced foot feature. Our physician reviewer found the records indicate that the enrollee has a right below knee amputation and his prostheses are less than two years old and still under warranty. The medical records provided do not indicate that irreparable wear has occurred or that repairs are required repairs and the cost of such repairs would be more than 60% of the cost of a replacement device, or of the part being replaced. No medical records are submitted to indicate that there has been a physiological change of the enrollee to necessitate a new prosthetic prescription. The elements of the coverage rule are not satisfied. The requested service is not 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 a replacement prosthetic leg with an advanced foot feature have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a replacement prosthetic leg with an advanced foot feature.
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 a LTACH admission is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says based on Medicare guidelines, the LTACH services you and/or your provider are requesting do not meet the requirements for approval.
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 enrollee is a 65-year-old male with a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery disease, and atrial fibrillation who been in the hospital since June 4, 2021 after a cardiac arrest. He has a tracheostomy and is being fed by an nasogastric tube. The records say that he is not responsive, not following commands, and does not respond to stimuli. He likely suffered anoxic brain injury due to the cardiac arrest. There is no documentation provided necessitating admission to a LTACH. The enrollee is receiving appropriate care at the present acute care hospital. The enrollee does not require services at the LTACH that are not available at the acute care hospital where he is currently receiving care. There are
no services available at the LTACH that the enrollee requires that are not available at the health care setting being offered by the health Plan. The requested LTACH services are not medically necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee and able to be furnished safely and effectively only on an inpatient basis. 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 LTACH 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 would like reconsideration based on the records submitted. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 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 the member does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. Medically necessary services 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 the Vertiflex superion device placement surgery (Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code(s): 22869 and 22870), for the enrollee.You asked the Plan to pre-approve the surgery. You say that the minimally invasive implantation of a posterior interspinous process spacer device Is the most appropriate treatment for this enrollee and that this choice does indeed meet the requirements as being reasonable and medically necessary.The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services are considered experimental and 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 the surgery. Our reviewer says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found the record indicates that the enrollee has lumbar pain with neurogenic claudication. The file contains an magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) from 2020 that demonstrates moderate central spinal stenosis. However, a recent computed tomography (CT) scan is reported to show severe spinal stenosis. The medical records as submitted are not sufficient to demonstrate the medical reasonableness or necessity of the requested service as defined by Medicare rules. The elements of the coverage rule are not satisfied. The requested service is not 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 surgery have not been met.Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Vertiflex superion device placement surgery (Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code(s): 22869 and 22870), for the enrollee.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that the enrollee is not at baseline and the enrollee's baseline is that they can get up and walk on their own with a walker. You state the enrollee is too weak to do that right now and the doctor believes the enrollee needs physical therapy. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the stay 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 daily skilled services are not necessary. Our physician reviewer found there are no identifiable skilled nursing service needs. There are identifiable skilled therapy service needs. The enrollee does not require skilled nursing or therapy services on a daily basis. This enrollee does not meet severity of illness or intensity of service criteria for an inpatient basis in a SNF setting. We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of SNF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that you would like reconsideration because the LTACH admission is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not have clinical conditions that cannot be appropriately treated in the current hospital, and there are no issues for which an LTACH may offer a therapeutic advantage.
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 medical record does not indicate that the enrollee requires services that he is not currently receiving but that would be available at the LTACH facility.
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: Outpatient Therapies
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the physical therapy (PT) services provided on May 1, 2020 by a PT assistant (PTA).
You asked the Plan to pay for the PTA services. You say that this should be covered as the services are overseen by medical providers, and the treatment rendered is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this is not billed using the correct code.
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that the services of a PTA cannot be provided incident to a physician or NPP service as these providers are not therapists.
In this case, the services were billed by an NPP. Since an NPP is not a therapist, PTA services cannot be billed by this provider. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the physical therapy (PT) services provided on May 1, 2020 by a PT assistant (PTA).