Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve SNF care. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that the stay is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says that the stay is not medically necessary based on SNF criteria. 
 
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 physician reviewer 
found the clinical documentation supports need for daily skilled services on an inpatient basis in a SNF. You 
were previously independent prior to stroke and still with complex neurological impairments in cognition, 
mobility and activities of daily living which would require the skill of professional therapists to assist with 
functional deficits while requiring neurological monitoring by a skilled nurse. 
 
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 been met. The Plan must continue coverage for the SNF skilled 
service until such time as the enrollee no longer needs the service and proper notice has been issued, or the 
100-day Medicare benefit is exhausted. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-approve SNF care.  
 
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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the lumbar laminectomy fusion anterior surgery (CPT 
code(s): 22845, 22853, 22558, and 20930). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the surgery. You say that there is significant stenosis which meets the 
criteria. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services are not 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 the surgery. Our reviewer says that the 
requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found there is no documented instability. There is no documentation of l5 nerve root injection 
therapy. Only six (6) weeks of physical therapy has been completed. More conservative measures are needed. 
There is no instability documented. Criteria for decompression and fusion not met. 
 
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 lumbar laminectomy fusion anterior surgery (CPT code(s): 22845, 22853, 22558, and 
20930).
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the mastectomy sleeve (code L9020) you purchased on 
August 5, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the mastectomy sleeve.. You say that you have a history of mastectomy with 
lymphedema. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the mastectomy sleeve you purchase is not a 
covered item. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that mastectomy sleeves are non-covered items. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the mastectomy sleeve (code L9020) you 
purchased on August 5, 2021.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Cyberknife procedure (which is radiation) in 
conjunction with the SpaceOAR procedure (CPT code(s): 77334, 77399, 77290, and77295). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the services. You say that the SpaceOAR procedure is your best chance at 
preventing damage to the rectum, sporing, and bleeding. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says not 
enough clinical information was provided to justify medical necessity. 
 
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 services. 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 not justify the necessity of SpaceOAR procedure in addition to radiation 
treatment. Specifically, the records do not show that the rectal dose volume histogram (DVH) constraints 
cannot be met without SpaceOar use. 
 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 services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve Cyberknife procedure (which is radiation) in conjunction with the SpaceOAR procedure 
(CPT code(s): 77334, 77399, 77290, and77295).
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the stay is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the stay is not medically necessary based on IRF criteria. 
 
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 patient does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical 
therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While the patient has a need 
for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documentation of a need for an intensive rehabilitation 
program.  
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 IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the custom orthopedic shoes (CPT code L3000). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the custom orthopedic shoes. You say that the greater issue is your ability to 
walk, hike and exercise without being in constant pain. You state the unhealed sesamoid bone makes it 
impossible to flex your foot while walking without the liner. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this 
item is not a covered benefit. 
 
Medicare rules state that supportive devices for the feet (such as orthotics) are only covered for patients with 
diabetic foot disease or for patients who wear a leg brace. The Plan follows these same rules.   
 
Records show that you do not suffer from diabetic foot disease, and you do not wear a leg brace. Although orthotics may be appropriate for you, neither Medicare nor the Plan provides coverage of orthotics for your 
condition. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the custom orthopedic shoes (CPT 
code L3000).
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve durable medical equipment to be provided by an out-of-
network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve OON services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you must get 
care from a network provider 
 
Medicare rules say that plans can require enrollees to get care from network providers. The contract with the 
Plan says that the Plan has to pre-approve care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving 
emergencies, out of area urgent care and care that cannot be provided by network providers. 
 
The requested provider in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan has network providers 
available who can provide the services at issue in this appeal. We found no exception that would require the 
Plan to pre-approve these OON services. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve 
durable medical equipment to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
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 requested admission to a LTACH is 
medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested admission to a LTACH does 
not meet criteria. 
 
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 appears to be stable and improving and should only require short-term 
additional acute care services that can be safely administered at the current facility until more appropriate for a 
lower level of care. There are no services at the LTACH that the enrollee requires that are not already available 
and covered at the current facility. Transfer to LTACH is not supported and will be considered not medically 
necessary at this time as it would not be clinically advantageous. 
 
 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 long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH 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. 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 medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee does not 
require services at the LTACH that are not available at the acute care hospital where she is currently receiving 
care. All medically necessary care is being provided in the current acute care facility. 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 health plan has approved ongoing care in the current acute care facility. 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 long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Gelsyn-3. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Gelsyn-3. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee has not 
met the step therapy requirements. 
 
Medicare covers Part B medications when they are reasonable and necessary but allows health plans to 
implement step therapy criteria. The Plan's contract indicates that it has implemented such criteria for certain Part B medications. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve Gelsyn-3. Our reviewer says that 
Gelsyn-3 is not medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee 
has not tried and failed the required drugs. The documentation does not support that Orthovisc or Supartz FX 
would likely be less effective, and/or would likely have adverse effects for the enrollee in this case. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Gelsyn-3 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Gelsyn-3.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve implantable neurostimulator (CPT code(s): L8769 and 
64555) 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the implantable neurostimulator. You say that this is not an investigational 
procedure. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services are not covered. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that payment may be made for implanted peripheral 
nerve stimulators in which electrodes are surgically placed under the skin around a nerve. The rules also say 
that acupuncture is only covered when provided for low back pain when furnished by a licensed acupuncturist.    
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. We find that this device does not meet the Medicare definition for an 
implanted nerve stimulator because the device involves needles inserted around the nerves and not electrodes 
being surgically implanted. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clearances for devices of this type are as 
electro-acupuncture devices. Since acupuncture is not covered by Medicare for any condition when rendered 
through a device rather than by a licensed practitioner, we find that Medicare coverage criteria for this auricular 
stimulator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve implantable 
neurostimulator (CPT code(s): L8769 and 64555)
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve compression stockings identified with code A6530. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the compression stockings. You say that this is medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says this is not a covered benefit as it does not meet the definition of a 
surgical dressing. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that compression stockings described by code A6530 are 
noncovered because they do not meet the statutory definition of a surgical dressing.  
 
Although this item may be appropriate, it does not fall into a covered benefit category and cannot be paid for by Medicare or the Plan. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve compression 
stockings identified with code A6530.
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 disagree with the denial. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the services are not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found you have a history of diabetes and 
chronic kidney disease and are receiving home health services at home.  You are medically stable with 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 you have a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documentation of 
a need for an intensive rehabilitation program. 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. 
 
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 an office visit provided on August 18, 2021 by an out-of-
network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for an office visit. You say that you would like to appeal the denial of the claim. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says The Prior Authorization was denied at the time of service; therefore, 
the claim was also denied. 
 
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 had network providers 
available who could have provided 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 an office visit provided on August 18, 2021 by an 
out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a crutch substitute. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a crutch substitute. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says that this item is not considered durable medical equipment. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that there is insufficient published clinical literature 
demonstrating safety and effectiveness in the Medicare population to establish the medical necessity for crutch 
substitutes (E0118). 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The DME MAC, the contractor responsible for coverage of medical 
equipment in the State of New York has decided that the knee walker coded as E0118 is not medically 
reasonable and necessary. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of a crutch 
substitute have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a crutch 
substitute.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a home health visit provided on October 22, 2021, by an 
OON provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the home health visit. You say that it is the facilities responsibility to obtain an 
authorization and it was medically necessary to treat the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 
the rendering provider is an OON provider and there was no referral from an in-network provider or an 
approved authorization. Also, the service rendered was not urgent or emergent. 
 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 had network providers 
available who could have provided 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 a home health visit provided on October 22, 2021, 
by an OON provider.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollees 
ongoing skilled therapy and nursing needs can be provided at a lower level of care. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found that there are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. While the enrollee has a 
need for physical or occupational therapy, there is no documentation of a need for an intensive rehabilitation 
program.  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 IRF admission and services.