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

We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for knee orthosis (L1851) and suspension sleeve (L2397) provided on August 14, 2019.
You asked the Plan to pay for the orthoses. You say that the medical records provided will show proof of medical necessity. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there is no evidence of an established relationship between the enrollee and the ordering physician, there was no claims submitted for an evaluation and management service and there is no evidence of a prior telehealth service with the ordering physician as required per CMS guidelines.
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that for eligible telehealth services, telecommunications systems substitute for an in-person encounter. Medicare enrollees are eligible for telehealth services only if they are presented from an authorized originating site located in either a county outside of a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) or a rural Health Professional Shortage Area (HPSA) located in a rural census tract. A review of the file does not show that the telehealth service was provided in an authorized originating site. This means that the telehealth visit is not a covered service under the Medicare program and cannot substitute for an in-person encounter. Consequently, the items/services ordered following the non-covered visit are likewise non-covered. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for knee orthosis (L1851) and suspension sleeve (L2397) provided on August 14, 2019.
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 this enrollee needs this level of care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says LTACH is not warranted in this case.
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 Long term acute care hospitals (LTACHs) are certified as acute care hospitals, and in general, LTACHs do not provide clinical services that are materially different than those of short term acute care hospitals. In this case, ongoing care needs include tracheostomy care with ventilator support, surveillance laboratory studies, tube feeding, skin care, and therapy services. The documentation does not support that the enrollee in this case requires services at the LTACH that are not available at the acute care hospital where he is currently receiving care. Consequently, the requested LTACH services are not medically necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee at this time. We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Favorable

We decided that the Plan has to pay for podiatry services provided on April 20, 2019.
You asked the Plan to pay for podiatry services. You say that you would like this claim reprocessed and approved for payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the member does not have out-of-network benefits.
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare health plans must make reasonable and diligent efforts to gather and forward to the IRE information regarding its decision to deny coverage or payment. The Plan has not made reasonable and diligent efforts to gather and forward to us information regarding their decision to deny your request. The Plan has failed to forward us the 2018 Member's Handbook. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for podiatry services provided on April 20, 2019.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Favorable

We decided that the Plan has to pay forthe acute inpatient hospital care provided from July 8, 2019 through July 10, 2019.You asked the Plan to pay foracute inpatient hospital care. You say that the stay was medically necessary.The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the stay is not medically necessary.The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that inpatient hospital care is covered when the doctor expects the patient to need hospital care that crosses at least two midnights. In rare and unusual cases, consideration may be given toinpatient hospital care when the hospital stay does not cross two midnights or more.We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pay for acute inpatient hospital care. Our reviewer says that the documentation supports that the criteria for inpatient payment are met in this case. Our physician reviewer found the review has determined that the record showed that at the time of inpatientadmission the admitting physician reasonably expected that the patient's necessary hospital care (including earlier emergency department (ED) and/or observation care) would span two midnights.We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of acute inpatient hospital care have been met.Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay forthe acute inpatient hospital care provided from July 8, 2019 through July 10, 2019.If the Plan does not agree with our decision,they can ask us to open a case again. We only open a case again if we believe there was a mistake or if there is new information to review. The Plan has to show us the mistake and/or send us the new information. This does not happen often. If we decide to open the case again, we will send you a letter.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approvebelow knee, flexible protective outer surface covering system L5962.You asked the Plan to pre-approvethe protective outer surface covering system. You say that the prosthesis you have proposed is the most basic to meet the enrollee's needs.The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the records do not show the enrollee would be using the artificialleg in very harsh conditions and that the custom shaped protective cover will not be enough.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 protective outer surface covering system. Our reviewer says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found the records do support the support the need the covering system.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 protective outer surface covering system have not been met.Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approvebelow knee, flexible protective outer surface covering system L5962.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approvethe diabetic shoes and inserts to be provided by the out of network provider, .You asked the Plan to pre-approvethe diabetic shoes and inserts. You say that the enrollee is homebound and you can go to the enrollee's home to provide the diabetic shoes and inserts.The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there is an in network provider who can provide the diabetic shoes and inserts.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 pre-approved care.The requested provider in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. 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 these items/services.Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approvethe diabetic shoes and inserts to be provided by the out of network provider.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) admission for the enrollee.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF services. You say that the enrollee needs hemodialysis services at a SNF. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not have daily skilled therapy or nursing needs.
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for care in a SNF when the four factors listed above 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 services. Our physician reviewer found that from a nursing perspective, the enrollee had a stage 3 sacral decubitus ulcer in addition to multiple decubitus ulcers on his LEs. He received hemodialysis. There are identifiable skilled nursing service needs. Regarding rehab services, the enrollee is dependent for functional mobility and activities of daily living. There are no identifiable skilled therapy service needs. The enrollee does not require skilled nursing or therapy services on a daily 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 SNF services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) admission for the enrollee.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the member is tolerating daily spontaneous breathing trials and qualifies for LTACH admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the member does not meet criteria for the LTACH admission.
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 as LTACHs and ACHs are licensed to provide the same level of care, there is no advantage in transferring the enrollee to the LTACH. The enrollee can remain at the current ACH until such time no acute services are required. 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 Plandoes not haveto pre-approveadmission to a long term acute care hospital (LTACH) for the enrollee.You asked the Planto pre-approvethe LTACH services. You say that this is medically necessary.The Plandenied your request. The Plansaysthe services could be provided in another setting.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 andnecessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee is currently undergoing treatment at an ACH following a motor vehicle collision resulting in multiple injuries. The enrollee was intubated/ventilated, but has since been extubated and is nolonger on a ventilator. The enrollee is participating in rehabilitative services. As LTACHs and ACHs are licensed to provide the same level of care, there is no advantage in transferring the enrollee to the LTACH. The enrollee can remain at the current ACH until such time no acute services are required. The enrollee can then be transferred/discharged to a lower level of care for any ongoing long term care needs.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 Plandoes not haveto pre-approveadmission to a long term acute care hospital (LTACH) for the enrollee
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the continuation of skilled nursing facility (SNF) care.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the continuation of skilled nursing facility (SNF) care. You say that the requested continuation of SNF care is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested continuation of SNF care does not meet criteria.
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for care in a SNF when the four factors listed above 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 the continuation of skilled nursing facility (SNF) care. Our reviewer says that daily skilled services are not necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee was admitted to acute care from 12/27/19 to 1/6/20 with a diagnosis of acute osteomyelitis, resulting in amputation of the right foot. The enrollee transferred to SNF on 1/6/20. From a nursing perspective, the enrollee received oral and topical medications and insulin. The enrollee had stable vital signs. She had uncomplicated wound care. She was treated for pain with effect. Regarding rehabilitation services, the enrollee received physical therapy and occupational therapy in the SNF. By the dates in question, the enrollee was at a minimal to moderate assist level with functional mobility including gait to 25 feet x 2. The enrollee required varying assist with activities of daily living. There are no identifiable skilled nursing service needs. There are no 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 skilled nursing facility 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 the continuation of skilled nursing facility (SNF) care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the continuation of skilled nursing facility (SNF) care.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pay forthe medical services provided to the enrollee on June 26, 2019.You asked the Plan to pay for this service. You say that this claim should be paid.The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee did not have prior authorization for out of network care.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 has network providers available who can provide the items/services at issue in this appeal. 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 forthe medical services provided to the enrollee on June 26, 2019
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pay forthe glucose monitor, test strips, lancets, control solution, and lancet device provided on August 19, 2019.You asked the Plan to pay forthe glucose monitor (E0607), test strips (A4253), lancets (A4259), control solution (A4256), and lancet device (A4258). You say that the Plan should pay this claim.The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the Delivery Ticket did not include the carriers tracking number and the Proof of Delivery did not include details to corroborate the Delivery Ticket.The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules state that DMEPOS is covered only when there are both a physician order and proof of delivery. The record shows that the Plan made several attempts to obtain the proof of delivery documentation for the items at issue in this appeal. The record does not contain a valid proof of delivery for the supplies provided in this case. The Delivery Ticket does not have the tracking number on it and the Proof of Delivery does not have a description of the items delivered.Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay forthe glucose monitor, test strips, lancets, control solution, and lancet device provided by HNC Medical Supplies on August 19, 2019.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for physician's services for a domiciliary or rest home visit provided on July 19, 2019.You asked the Plan to pay for the physician's services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the Plan requires utilization of network providers when possible and available, and requires authorization for certain services. No medical necessity for an out-of-network provider, such as an urgent or emergency situation, has been documented. 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 services at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay for these services. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for physician's services for a domiciliary or rest home visit provided on July 19, 2019
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Vyzulta.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Vyzulta. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this is not covered under your medical 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 Vyzulta.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve LTACH services for enrollee. You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that delay to an LTACH will jeopardize the enrollee's ability to fully recover and regain maximum independence.The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's current needs are being met in the acute setting.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 physician reviewer found that LTACHs are certified as acute care hospitals, and in general, LTACHs do not provide clinical services that are materially different than those of short term acute care hospitals. In this case, ongoing care needs include surveillance laboratory studies, intravenous antibiotics, wound care, and therapy services. The documentation does not support that the enrollee in this case requires services at the LTACH that are not available at the acute care hospital where he is currently receiving care. There are no required medical services identified that are available at the LTACH, that are not available at the current health care setting being offered by the health plan. Consequently, the requested LTACH services are not medically necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee at this time.We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services for enrollee.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for visions services provided to the enrollee on August 1, 2019, by an out-of-network providers.
You asked the Plan to pay for visions services. You say that the claim should be paid. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not have out-of-network benefits.
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 has network providers available who can provide the items/services at issue in this appeal. 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 visions services provided to the enrollee on August 1, 2019, by an out-of-network providers.