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 these services are medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says that the services you need can be provided safely in other settings. 
 
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. The 
complexity of your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not require an acute hospital inpatient stay 
with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. You were admitted for humerus and femur fractures after a fall. Your medical problems are stable. There are 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 the medical record supports a need for physical and/or 
occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. Medically necessary 
care can be provided in a different level of care. 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. Our 
physician reviewer found that your condition does not meet Medicare criteria for IRF 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: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Euflexxa. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Euflexxa. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says you have not failed three months of conservative treatment. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for a drug or biological only if it is safe 
and effective and otherwise reasonable and necessary.  
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve Euflexxa. Our reviewer says that the 
requested use of Euflexxa is not supported. Our physician reviewer found the provided records do not 
document failure of three months of pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic therapy for your knee pain. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Euflexxa have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Euflexxa.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to issue reimbursement for the hearing aid (V5060), ear molds  
(V5264 x 2), and the assistive listening device, television amplifier (V5270) purchased from the out-of-network 
(OON) provider on May 18, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to issue reimbursement for these items. You say that you are requesting a reconsideration 
of the Plan's denial for payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says these items are not payable as 
they were purchased from an out-of-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 issue reimbursement for care from out-of-network providers only in cases 
involving emergencies, out of area urgent care and pre-approved care. 
 
The provider in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan had network providers available 
who could have provided the items at issue in this appeal. The Plan did not pre-approve the items at issue.  
We found no exception that would require the Plan to issue reimbursement for these items. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to issue reimbursement for the hearing aid (V5060), ear molds (V5264 x 2), 
and the assistive listening device, television amplifier (V5270) purchased from the out-of-network (OON) 
provider on May 18, 2022.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Desloratadin tablets. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Desloratadin tablets. You say that you would like the Plan to reconsider 
their denial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says Desloratadin tablets are not covered under the 
enrollee's Medicare Part B benefit. 
 
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 Desloratadin tablets.  
 
Benefits for Desloratadin tablets may be available under Medicare Part D. Contact the Plan that administers 
Part D benefits for further information concerning any benefits and appeal rights.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an Optimizer Smart device for the enrollee. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve these services. You say that these services are medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says that this patient does not meet FDA Indications for the Optimizer 
device. 
 
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 these services. Our reviewer says that 
the requested services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. An exhaustive 
review of the current medical literature pertaining to the cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) system 
confirms multiple observational studies suggesting clinical benefit from CCM. Several randomized clinical 
trials of CCM versus control have also been reported, along with meta-analysis pooling the data from multiple 
studies, with CCM providing meaningful improvement in quality-of-life scores and objective functional 
capacity. While the clinical studies led to FDA approval in 2019, CCM remains the subject of multiple studies 
examining long-term efficacy, as well as randomized, controlled, double-blinded trials to quantify clinical 
efficacy. Until such statistically rigorous studies are completed, it is premature to presume clinical outcomes and benefit. Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee's condition does not meet criteria for coverage of 
these services. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of these services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve an Optimizer Smart device for the enrollee.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the requested IRF care is a medical necessity for the 
enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says medical-necessity rules for IRF 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 that 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. While the medical record supports a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for 
intensive rehabilitation services. There is not a reasonable expectation that the enrollee will be able to fully 
participate in and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Intracept procedure. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Intracept. You say that this procedure fills a treatment gap for patients that 
do not receive adequate relief from traditional methods and do not have instability to indicate that fusion is 
appropriate. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there is insufficient evidence of the efficacy of this 
procedure. 
 
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 Intracept. Our reviewer says that the 
requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found the Intracept procedure is experimental. More research is needed to show safety and efficacy. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Intracept have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve the Intracept procedure.
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 needs IRF care. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says an intensive rehabilitation program 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 complexity of the enrollees nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. Medical 
problems are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. While the documentation does 
support a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for an intensive, multi-
disciplinary rehabilitation program. There is not a reasonable expectation that the enrollee will be able to fully 
participate in and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a MyoPro myoelectric orthosis (L8702). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a MyoPro myoelectric orthosis. You say that this is medically necessary. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this is experimental. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that items and services that are not medically 
necessary are not covered.  
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve a MyoPro myoelectric orthosis. Our 
reviewer says that the requested item is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found there are no records from the enrollee's actual treating provider clarify why the 
requested device is the most appropriate treatment for the enrollee's condition. 
 
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 MyoPro myoelectric orthosis have not been met. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pre-approve a MyoPro myoelectric orthosis (L8702).
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an ultralightweight wheelchair (K0005). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve an ultralightweight wheelchair. You say that the requested item is for use in 
the home and is not a backup chair. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested item is not a 
covered benefit because it is for use outside the home. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that payment is made for only one wheelchair at a 
time.  
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. In this case, you do not dispute that the item at issue is requested for 
use in addition to a power wheelchair. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage 
of an ultralightweight wheelchair have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-
approve an ultralightweight wheelchair (K0005).
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the critical care services (99291) provided on February 16, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the billed services are 
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 99291 is "Critical care, evaluation and management of 
the critically ill or critically injured patient; first 30-74 minutes". 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 We find that CPT code 99291 is not supported in the medical record. Specifically, the records do not show that 
30-74 minutes of critical care services were provided on the date of service in question. 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 the critical care services (99291) provided on February 16, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an office visit provided on January 15, 2021, by an OON 
provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for an office visit. You say that you did not know that you needed a referral for the 
service and you can't afford the cost. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the out-of-network services 
were not authorized. 
 
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 January 15, 2021, by an 
OON provider.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an office visit to be provided by an out-of-network 
(OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the physician service. You say that you are trying to avoid wrong 
medication and lack of emphasis on diet and exercise. You say that this is not the emphasis of your current 
doctor, nor primary care provider (PCP). You also say that the requested provider aligns more with the path 
you would like to take for your health. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there are in-network 
providers available to provide the requested services. 
 
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 service at issue in this appeal. We found no exception that would require the 
Plan to pre-approve this service. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an office 
visit to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve radiology examinations (x-rays) ordered by a 
chiropractor. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve x-rays ordered by a chiropractor. You say that you would like the Plan to 
reconsider their denial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says x-rays are not covered when ordered 
through a chiropractor. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that the only chiropractic service Medicare covers is 
manual manipulation of the spine to correct a subluxation.  
 
The records show that the service at issue is not manual manipulation of the spine. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pre-approve radiology examinations (x-rays) ordered by a chiropractor.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an office visit to be provided by an OON provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve an office visit. You say that you would like to be approved to see the out-of-
network provider. You say that you would feel at ease in case something were to go wrong. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says you have been approved to see an equally qualified provider in-network for the 
services. 
 
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 
an office visit to be provided by an OON provider.
Appeal type: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve additional non-emergency transportation. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve additional non-emergency transportation. You say that you need the 
additional transportation to receive future procedures on your back and knee. You also say that you cannot 
drive yourself, nor can you ride a bus after the procedures. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you 
have exhausted your allotted 10 one-way trips for the year. The Plan also says that your benefit plan does not 
cover more than 10 one-way trips per plan year. 
 
Medicare does not cover transport in a vehicle that is not an ambulance. However, the Plan offers a 
transportation benefit that exceeds Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plans coverage rules apply in this 
case. The Plan covers a maximum of up to 10 one-way trips per year.  We looked at your request, the records in the case file, and the rules. Based on this information, we decided 
that you have exhausted the Plan maximum benefit for coverage of routine transportation. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve additional non-emergency transportation.
Appeal type: Testing
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 76882 billed for date of service October 1, 
2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 76882. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says payment for 
code 76882 is bundled into payment for code 93925. 
 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 76882 
is a column II code to column I code 93925. This claim has not been billed with an appropriate modifier to 
bypass the edit. Based on the claim submitted, Medicare billing criteria have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 76882 billed for date of service October 1, 2021.