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 the requested admission to an IRF is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested admission to an IRF 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 the complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not 
require an acute rehabilitation hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. 
The enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational 
therapy, at an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. It is not clear that the enrollee is reasonably expected to 
fully participate in and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF. Therapy 
services may be provided at a lower 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for the office visit (99214) provided on Novembe 15, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the office visit. You say that you would like reconsideration based on the records 
submitted. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that this service was billed within the global surgery 
period of CPT code 52601. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare health plans must make reasonable and 
diligent efforts to gather and forward to the IRE information regarding its decision to deny coverage or 
payment. 
 
The Plan has not made reasonable and diligent efforts to gather and forward to us information regarding their 
decision to deny your request. Specifically, the Plan has denied this service stating that it is within the global 
period of another surgery. The Plan has not forwarded any evidence in the form of remittance advice or a claim 
to show that a prior surgery was rendered or billed by this provider. It is the burden of the Health Plan to 
substantiate their denial with evidence. In this case, the Plan's denial has not been substantiated so we must find 
in your favor. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for the office visit (99214) provided on Novembe 
15, 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: Outpatient Therapies
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve physical therapy services to be provided by the 
requested out-of-network provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve physical therapy services to be provided by the requested out-of-network 
provider. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you must receive care from in-network providers with 
the exception of emergency or urgent care, dialysis while temporarily out of the Plan's service area or if the 
care cannot be provided with an in-network provider, which requires prior authorization from the Plan. 
 
  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 services. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve physical 
therapy services to be provided by the requested out-of-network provider.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve external mobile cardiovascular telemetry with 
electrocardiographic (ECG) recording (CPT code(s): 93228 and 93229). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the services. You say that the enrollee has heart disease, and this is 
continuity of care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says your records do not show the enrollee has 
received shorter-term heart monitoring (Holter).  
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 enrollee has palpitations. There is no supportive evidence that the ordering practitioner 
documented any standard, non-mobile cardiac outpatient telemetry (MCOT), ambulatory ECG monitoring. In 
summary, there is insufficient documentation to support the medical necessity for an MCOT monitor in this 
enrollees clinical management. 
 
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 external mobile cardiovascular telemetry with electrocardiographic (ECG) recording (CPT 
code(s): 93228 and 93229).
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 expected all expenses would be covered. You 
say that you should not have been placed there he could not afford to pay. The Plan denied your request. The 
Plan says authorization denied because the IRF is not medically necessary, and the enrollee's needs can be met 
at a lower level of care such as 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 enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either 
physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While the enrollee 
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 inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for an inpatient hospital stay provided from 
October 12, 2021, to October 13, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for an inpatient hospital stay. You say that you were told twice that 
everything was covered in full. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you have been charged the correct 
cost sharing amount. 
 
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 $275 
copayment per day for days 1-5 of inpatient hospital care. The Plan contract also says that there is no charge 
after day 5. 
 The medical records show you were admitted to the hospital as an inpatient. You have been asked to pay a 
$275 copayment for a one-day inpatient hospital stay. An inpatient hospital stay falls within the Inpatient 
Hospital Care benefit category. 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 an inpatient hospital stay 
provided from October 12, 2021, to October 13, 2021.  
 
Your complaint about being given incorrect coverage information is not a valid appeal for medical coverage. 
This part of your complaint is a grievance that must be answered by the Plan. Medicare does not permit us to 
make a decision about these types of complaints.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve admission to a long term acute care hospital (LTACH) 
for the enrollee. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says needed care is being received in hospital where the enrollee is now. 
 
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 was admitted with toxic epidermal necrolysis. The record indicates that 
the enrollee requires ongoing acute care services. The enrollee continues to receive acute care services and 
these have not been denied. The medical record does not indicate that the enrollee requires services that he is 
not currently receiving but that would be available at the LTACH facility. The elements of the coverage rules 
are not satisfied. 
  
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 admission to a long term acute care hospital (LTACH) for the enrollee.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve 3 home health skilled nursing visits. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve 3 home health skilled nursing visits. You say that the services are necessary. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says based on the documentation provided, coverage criteria has not 
been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that home health care services may be covered if it is 
medically necessary for the enrollee to receive skilled nursing or therapy. A doctor must certify the need for 
home health care services.  
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 3 home health skilled nursing visits. 
Our reviewer says that the services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the review has 
determined that the records do not show that skilled nursing services are required to effectively provide 
treatment, care, and/or services in order to improve the enrollee's condition, or to establish/perform a 
maintenance program to maintain the enrollee's condition and/or prevent deterioration. The records do not 
show that skilled therapy services are required to effectively provide treatment, care, and/or services in order to 
improve the enrollee's level of function, or to establish/perform a maintenance program to maintain the 
enrollee's level of function and/or prevent deterioration. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of 3 home health skilled nursing visits have not been met. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan does not have to pre-approve 3 home health skilled nursing visits.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that the requested admission to a SNF is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested admission to a SNF does not meet 
criteria. 
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for care in a SNF when the four factors 
listed 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 reviewer says that daily 
skilled services are not necessary. Our physician reviewer found you do not have a need for intravenous 
medications, new tube feeding, ostomy care or daily complex wound care. You have shown no objective 
improvement in your functional status despite therapy in the hospital. You are non-ambulatory due to your 
severe obesity and weakness and you require a lift device for transfers. You are maximum assist for activities 
of daily living. Records do not support that significant improvement in function is likely to occur within a 
reasonable time frame. You do not require the services on an inpatient basis, only in a skilled nursing facility 
setting. Services in a long-term care facility on a part time basis appear appropriate 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 SNF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care.
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 LTACH is the best level of care for the 
enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says based on Medicare guidelines, the requested LTACH 
admission does not meet the requirements for approval. 
 
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 he is currently receiving care. 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 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 Neulasta (pegfilgrastim), excludes biosimilar, 0.5mg 
(J2506). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Neulasta. You say that the requested drug is medically necessary to prevent 
neutropenia. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested drug is not medically necessary. 
 
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 Neulasta. Our reviewer says that the 
requested drug is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the requested drug is not medically 
necessary for weekly 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 Neulasta have not been met.  Specifically, the file shows that the requested drug 
is not medically necessary for weekly use. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve 
Neulasta (pegfilgrastim), excludes biosimilar, 0.5mg (J2506).
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 while the enrollee does require skilled therapy, this can be done 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 he complexity of the members nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not require an acute rehab hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The 
member does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational 
therapy, at an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. The member continues to have a need for skilled 
therapy with ongoing safety concerns and a potential for functional improvement however, the documentation 
doesnt support that she would meet criteria for admission to an acute inpatient rehabilitation facility.  There is 
no indication that the member would require skilled rehabilitation in an IRF, participating in rehab services 15 
hours a week, under the supervision of a physician with at least 3 visits weekly to regain or maintain her 
functional status.  The member can receive further services at a lower 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 are appealing the denial. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says authorization denied because IRF is not medically necessary, and the enrollee's needs 
can be met at a lower level of care such as a skilled nursing facility (SNF). 
 
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 you do not need to be expected to achieve complete independence in self-care 
nor be expected to return to your prior level of functioning. You do not require treatment by multiple therapies. 
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: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that the requested admission to a SNF is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested admission to a SNF does not meet 
criteria. 
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for care in a SNF when the four factors 
listed 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 reviewer says that daily 
skilled services are not necessary. Our physician reviewer found the documentation supports that it is medically 
reasonable and necessary to provide skilled services on a daily basis on an inpatient basis, in a skilled nursing 
facility setting. These services are currently being provided at the IRF. The goal of an IRF stay is to enable 
your safe return to the home or community-based environment upon discharge. The treatment goals and 
achievements during an IRF admission are expected to reflect significant and timely progress toward this end 
result. 
 
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 not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care.