Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve implantable neurostimulator (L8769 and 64555).  
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the implantable neurostimulator. You say that the device is for the 
enrollees back pain. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says medical studies have not proven that the 
service(s) or procedure(s) is helpful for treatment of the enrollee's health problem. 
 
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 (L8769 and 64555).
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve IRF stay to be provided by an OON provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF stay. You say that your provider will be able to check on you and you 
will receive better care at the out-of-network facility that is being requested. The Plan denied your request. The 
Plan says the service can be provided by an in-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 IRF care 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-approve IRF 
stay to be provided by an OON provider.
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 has rehabilitation goals that include 
modified independence for basic mobility and with return home at a modified independent level. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the Medicare criteria for admission to an 
Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section.  
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Contour Next test strips. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the strips. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says this is not medically necessary and not the preferred brand. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that contract suppliers are not required to furnish a 
specific brand name item or mode of delivery to a beneficiary unless prescribed by a physician or treating 
practitioner to avoid an adverse medical outcome.  
 
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 strips. Our reviewer says that the 
requested services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer 
found that medical necessity for the specific brand is not provided, and the physician did not indicate that this 
specific brand is indicated. 
 
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 strips have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Contour Next test strips.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Levalbuterol Tartrate HFA. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the drug. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says this drug is for self-administration. 
 
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 Levalbuterol Tartrate HFA.
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 enrollee is safe and stable for 
discharge and LTACH is the safest and most efficient level of care for the enrollee's complexity. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's records do not show that your continued treatments and care 
can only be given in a hospital setting, services can be safely received care in another setting, a Skilled Nursing 
Facility. 
 
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 record indicates that the enrollee has ongoing acute medical needs and still requires acute care services and continues to receive acute care services that have not been denied. 
 
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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a lightweight wheelchair to be provided by an out-of-
network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a lightweight wheelchair. You say that your current wheelchair is broken. 
You also say that this provider was advised they were in-network. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 
the requested wheelchair can be provided in-network. 
 
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 confirmed there are 
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-approve a lightweight wheelchair 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 LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that this is medically necessary for the 
enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request is not medically necessary, when they are 
ready to leave the hospital, they can safely receive this care in another setting, such as a Skilled Nursing 
Facility (SNF). 
 
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 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 IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee is not at their baseline. They are de-
conditioned and need IRF services to help overcome this. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
request 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 that the enrollees medical problems are stable and there are no complex nursing or 
rehabilitation needs. While the medical record supports a need for physical or occupational therapy, there is no 
documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different 
level of care. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for initial hospital care (procedure code 99223) rendered on 
October 9, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. You say that this should be paid for. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 99223-25 (1 unit) remains not supported. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate CPT code. 
 
In this case, the CPT Code Manual definition of code 99223 is "Initial hospital care, per day, for the evaluation 
and management of a patient, which requires these 3 key components: A comprehensive history; A 
comprehensive examination; and Medical decision making of high complexity. Counseling and/or coordination 
of care with other physicians, other qualified health care professionals, or agencies are provided consistent with 
the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the problem(s) requiring 
admission are of high severity. Typically, 70 minutes are spent at the bedside and on the patient's hospital floor 
or unit." 
 
We asked our coder 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 the services. Our reviewer says that the services at issue in 
this case were not supported by the medical records. Our reviewer found that in this case, the documentation 
doesnt support the CPT code 99223. The documentation available for review does not support that the 
encounter required decision making of high complexity by the specialist on 10/09/2022. 
 
We looked at this coder'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 pay for initial hospital care (procedure code 99223) rendered on October 9, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for initial hospital care (procedure code 99222) rendered on 
November 28, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. You say that this should be paid for. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says the records do not support the services billed. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate CPT code. 
 
In this case, the CPT Code Manual definition of code 99222 is "Initial hospital care, per day, for the evaluation 
and management of a patient, which requires these 3 key components: A comprehensive history; A 
comprehensive examination; and Medical decision making of moderate complexity. Counseling and/or 
coordination of care with other physicians, other qualified health care professionals, or agencies are provided 
consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the problem(s) 
requiring admission are of moderate severity. Typically, 50 minutes are spent at the bedside and on the patient's 
hospital floor or unit." 
 
We asked our coder 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 the services. Our reviewer says that the services at issue in 
this case were not supported by the medical records. Our reviewer found that neither the history nor the 
physical examination is comprehensive. The medical decision making was straight-forward. As such, the 
billing of CPT 99222 is not supported. 
 
We looked at this coder'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 pay for initial hospital care (procedure code 99222) rendered on November 28, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve office visits (99204, 99214) to be provided by an out-of-
network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve office visits to be provided by an OON provider. You say that the services 
are necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there are in-network providers that are able to 
provide these services. Therefore, coverage criteria have not been met. 
 
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 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-approve 
office visits (99204, 99214) to be provided 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 home ventilator (E0466). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a home ventilator. You say that without non-invasive ventilation (NIV) 
therapy, the enrollee is at high risk for hospital readmission and potentially life-threatening exacerbation. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested home ventilator is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that ventilators may be covered when they are medically 
necessary for patients who have neuromuscular disease, thoracic restrictive diseases, and chronic respiratory 
failure due to COPD. 
 
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 home ventilator. Our reviewer says that the requested home ventilator is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the provided 
records indicate a diagnosis of chronic respiratory failure consequent to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 
The reviewer found that the home ventilator is being requested for use in average volume assured pressure 
support (AVAPS) mode with auto-EPAP (AE) which could be provided by a bilevel positive airway pressure 
(BiPAP) device with AVAPS and a back-up rate. Provided records do not document trial and failure of a 
BiPAP device with AVAPS and a back-up rate. Therefore, the reviewer found that the requested home 
ventilator is not 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 a home ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a home ventilator (E0466).
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 services are medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the services that you need can be provided safely in another setting such as 
a skilled nursing facility, home with home health services or home with outpatient therapy. 
 
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 you do not require treatment by multiple therapies. While the medical record 
supports a need for physical or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive rehabilitation 
services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different level of care. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: 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 prefer to admit to acute rehabilitation because 
you were independent and active before coming to the hospital. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 
your records do not show that you need an intensive team for your care, services needed can be provided safely 
in other settings, a skilled nursing facility, home with home health services or home with outpatient therapy. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section.  
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not require an 
acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. 
 
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: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health services provided from February 6, 2022, to 
March 7, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the home health services as billed. You say that you disagree with the Plan's 
denial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the claim has not been billed with the correct admission 
date. 
 The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that for home health services that are continuing from 2021, a 
NOA must be submitted for the first period of care in 2022, using the first date of the period as the admission 
date. Subsequent claims must report this new date as the admission date in order for the claim to be matched to 
the correct NOA.  
 
We reviewed the file and the Medicare rules. We find that the admission date reported on the claim at issue 
does not match the date for the NOA which is filed for the first date in 2022 as required. Based on this 
information, we find that the Medicare rules for payment of the claim at issue have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health services provided from February 6, 2022, to 
March 7, 2022.