Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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 cannot take care of your needs at this time and 
you need rehab to get strong again. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says [Enter plan denial rationale, 
e.g. "...rules for SNF care have not been met."] 
 
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 clinical documentation states that you are not fully participating in skilled therapy 
in a skilled nursing level setting and it is documented that there is concern about you being to participate in more intensive therapy.  
 
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 long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the level of care needed is beyond what 
can be expected at an alternative level of care such as a skilled nursing facility. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says the enrollee is receiving appropriate inpatient care and is currently unstable for transfer to an 
LTACH. 
 
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. The enrollee is receiving acute hospital care, and acute care services have not been denied. 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 she is currently receiving care. The clinical assessment in the case file 
does not support that the enrollee is reasonably expected to benefit from, and improve with, LTACH services. 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: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the fluoroscopic guidance for needle placement services 
coded 77002 provided on November 8, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the fluoroscopic guidance for needle placement services. You say that you would 
like the plan to reconsider their denial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services billed are not 
separately payable.  
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, we have confirmed that code the 
fluoroscopic guidance for needle placement services is an add-on code and has not been billed with an 
appropriate primary procedure code. Based on the claim submitted, Medicare billing criteria have not been met. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the fluoroscopic guidance for needle placement 
services coded 77002 provided on November 8, 2021.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for the eye exam rendered on December 9, 
2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for these services. You say that this was your yearly vision check 
up. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the copayment was applied correctly. 
 
The rules say a plan must disclose to its enrollees in clear, accurate terms all cost sharing information (such as 
copayments, deductibles and coinsurance). Your contract with the Plan clearly says that you must pay a $25 
copayment for each additional eye exam.  
 
Review of the file shows that you had an eye exam on December 9, 2021 to treat open angle glaucoma in both 
eyes. You have been asked to pay a $25 copayment for these services. These services fall within the additional 
eye exam benefit category. You had a previous eye exam on October 25, 2021 that had no copayment. This 
means that you have been asked to pay the correct amount based on your contract with the Plan. This cost 
sharing is a contractual obligation you agreed to pay when you enrolled in the Plan. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for the eye exam rendered on December 9, 2021.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that IRF admission is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says that you do not meet IRF admission 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 clinical documentation suggests that your underlying Parkinson's disease was the 
etiology of the admission diagnosis which is a IRF compliant diagnosis. Evaluating therapists document you 
would benefit from intense physical, occupational, and speech therapy. Your provider documents you would 
benefit from inpatient medical monitoring of comorbidities.  
 
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 has to pre-
approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.  
 
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-approve a home ventilator. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a home ventilator. You say that your condition is life-threatening and oyu 
have chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says ventilators used to 
provide continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or bi-level positive airway pressure (BiPAP) are not 
reasonable and 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 a home ventilator is not medically necessary for you. Our physician reviewer found There is insufficient 
documentation to support a diagnosis of chronic respiratory failure consequent to chronic obstructive 
pulmonary disease. The documentation does not support that the coverage criteria have been satisfied in this 
case. It is not documented that you have failed treatment with BiPAP or CPAP. Products classified as E0466 when used to provide CPAP or bi-level PAP shall are not covered, regardless of the underlying medical 
condition. It is not clear that a ventilator is needed for your care instead of a bi- level positive airway pressure 
(BPAP) breathing machine with a special function (called volume assured pressure support or VAPS). 
 
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.
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 meets or exceeds the 
requirements for LTACH care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's medical needs are 
being met in the current acute setting. The LTACH would add no additional services. 
 
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 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. 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: 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 IRF care is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the patient does not meet criteria for IRF admission. 
 
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's diagnosis is not IRF-compliant. Evaluating therapists document that the 
patient has met most skilled therapy goals thus would not require at least 2 disciplines of therapy on an 
intensive basis. The provider states that care would be better suited in acute care from a medical standpoint as opposed to skilled nursing facility but there are no documented therapy goals.  
 
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 IRF care is medically necessary to maximize 
function and independence. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says your needs can be met 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 the complexity of your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not require an 
acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. You were admitted for a pelvic fracture. Your medical problems are stable, and you have 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: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the breast ultrasound rendered on December 7, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for these services. You say that you disagree with the denial. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the claim is a duplicate. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that claims or claim lines that have been determined to be 
exact duplicates of another claim or claim line are denied. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The file shows that the services at issue were previously paid by the 
Plan on a separate claim for the same date of service. 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 
pay for the breast ultrasound rendered on December 7, 2021.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the custom mandibular sleep apnea appliance rendered on 
December 23, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for these services. You say that you disagree with the denial. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the services are not covered. 
 
Medicare generally does not cover dental services. The Plan follows the same rule. 
 
The services you are asking the Plan to pay for involve the care, treatment, filling, removal or replacement of 
the enrollees teeth or the structures directly supporting the enrollees teeth. These are dental services that are 
not covered or paid for by Medicare. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the custom 
mandibular sleep apnea appliance rendered on December 23, 2021.
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 IRF care is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says your needs can be met 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 the complexity of your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not require an 
acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. You were admitted for 
syncope. Your medical problems are stable, and you have 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: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that IRF care is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says that you do not meet criteria for IRF admission. 
 
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 amputation is an IRF qualifying diagnosis. Per the clinical documentation, you have 
new functional impairments and require ongoing physical and occupational therapy. Evaluating therapists state 
that you will benefit from and participate in intense therapy and your provider documents you have multiple 
comorbidities and wound care which would benefit from continued inpatient monitoring while receiving 
intensive therapy.  
 
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 has to pre-
approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.  
 
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: Testing
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for the short-latency somatosensory evoked potential study (procedure 
code 95938) provided to the enrollee on October 26, 2021. 
 
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 that the service does not meet the coverage requirements. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that services are covered if 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 pay for the services. Our reviewer says that the 
requested services are considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer 
found that in this case, the enrollee had undergone an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for 
repair of a fracture. This would be a procedure during which there is risk of additional nerve or spinal cord 
injury, given the fracture. In such a setting, this request would meet the criteria for coverage. 
 
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 been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for 
the short-latency somatosensory evoked potential study (procedure code 95938) provided to the enrollee on 
October 26, 2021.  
 
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: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the radiologic examination of the left foot (73630-TC-LT) 
provided on February 10, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for code 73630-TC-LT. You say that you would like the Plan to reconsider their 
denial of payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services are not covered as billed. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that diagnosis codes must be billed with the most precise 
code that most fully explains the narrative description of the symptom or diagnosis. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The file shows that the radiologic examination was billed with one or 
more diagnosis codes that were inappropriately coded. Medicare rules say that some ICD-10-CM codes 
indicate laterality, specifying whether the condition occurs on the left, right or is bilateral. It is not appropriate to report unspecified when a more specific diagnosis code is available. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pay for the radiologic examination of the left foot (73630-TC-LT) provided on February 10, 
2022.