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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve SNF care. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that the enrollee would benefit from skilled nursing 
services due to their medical complexity. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the stay is not medically 
necessary based on SNF criteria. 
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for care in a SNF when the four factors 
listed in the Medicare rules section are met. Custodial care is not covered. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve SNF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested SNF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee does not have any parental medication; complex wound care or nutrition 
given via a feeding tube. The enrollee is medically stable without any acute exacerbations of chronic medical 
problems. The enrollee's physical function is at or near the enrollee's baseline and the enrollee can receive 
services at a lower level of care. Admission to a SNF for inpatient skilled rehabilitation services 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 SNF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve SNF care.
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 you are not being treated well at the 
current facility and have not made any progress. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an LTACH 
admission is not medically necessary, and you can safely receive the care you need in the current hospital 
setting. 
 
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 there is no evidence that you require services that are not currently available at 
your current acute setting. You can remain at the current acute care hospital until no acute services are required. 
You can then be discharged to a lower level of care for any ongoing long term care needs. 
 
   
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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve OneTouch Ultra test strips. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve these services. You say that you disagree with the denial. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the services are available from the preferred providers. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that Plans may limit enrollees to preferred providers 
for durable medical equipment and supplies.  
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The requested items are from a non-preferred provider. The services 
are available from one of the Plans preferred providers. 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 OneTouch Ultra test strips.
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 stay is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the stay is not medically necessary based on IRF criteria. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee does not have capacity to participate in and benefit from intensive 
rehabilitation. The enrollee does not require frequent physiatry oversight. The enrollee has advanced chronic illness, advanced age, and poor functional status. 
 
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 IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the stay is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the stay is not medically necessary based on IRF criteria. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee does not require intensive rehabilitation or frequent physiatry oversight. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Freestyle Libre 2 continuous glucose monitor (CGM) 
and supplies. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve these services. You say that you disagree with the denial. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the criteria are not met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that therapeutic CGMs are considered medically 
reasonable and necessary for enrollees with diabetes who use insulin with at least three daily administrations, 
require frequent self-adjustment of insulin dosage based on the blood glucose testing results and have had an 
in-person visit with their treating physician to assess adherence to their CGM regimen and diabetes treatment 
plan. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The documentation indicates that the enrollee does not have a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus and treat with insulin three or more times per day or use an insulin pump. 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 a Freestyle Libre 2 continuous glucose 
monitor (CGM) and supplies.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for outpatient hospital services provided on 
October 06, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for outpatient hospital services. You say that you disagree with the 
copaymet. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this cost sharing was charged 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 $50 
copayment for outpatient hospital services/outpatient hospital and observation service. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $50 copayment for outpatient hospital services. This item/service falls within the 
outpatient hospital services/outpatient hospital and observation service 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 outpatient hospital services provided on October 06, 2022.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee requires a higher level of rehab services 
to optimize their mobility and strength for their return home with a safe and sustainable discharge. You say that 
the enrollee's needs cannot be safely met with home health services or a skilled nursing facility. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says an IRF admission is not medically necessary, and the enrollee can safely 
receive the services they need 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. 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 acute 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 the services are necessary for the enrollee to receive 
additional therapies. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's therapy needs can be met in a 
skilled nursing unit. 
 
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. 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the office visit provided on August 04, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the office visit. You say that you were not aware that referrals were once again 
required. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that unauthorized, out-of-network care is not covered. 
 
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 provider of the item(s)/service(s) at issue in this appeal is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan 
did not pre-approve the item(s)/service(s) at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay for the item(s)/service(s). Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the office visit provided 
on August 04, 2022.
Appeal type: Outpatient Therapies
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to reduce the copayment for a surgical procedure of the nose provided 
on November 21, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to reduce the copayment for a surgical procedure of the nose. You say that you think the 
cost sharing should be lower. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this cost sharing was charged 
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 $325 
copayment for in-network surgical visits in a hospital setting. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $325 copayment for a surgical procedure of the nose. This item/service falls 
within the in-network surgical visits in a hospital setting 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 reduce 
the copayment for a surgical procedure of the nose provided on November 21, 2022.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve positron emission tomography (PET) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the PET scan. You say that the records provided support the need for the 
services in dispute. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the records do not show that the 
Frontotemporal Dementia is a diagnostic consideration that needs to be distinguished from Alzheimer's 
Dementia. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that an FDG PET scan is considered reasonable and 
necessary in patients with a recent diagnosis of dementia and documented cognitive decline of at least 6 
months, who meet diagnostic criteria for both AD and FTD. 
 
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 PET scan. Our reviewer says that 
the criteria for coverage have not been met. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee is only suspected of 
having AD. They are not suspected of having FTD. There was otherwise no mention of FTD in the medical 
records provided. There was no indication that the enrollee met diagnostic criteria for both conditions. 
Therefore, the request is not reasonable and 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 the PET scan have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve positron emission tomography (PET) 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 the enrollee meets full inpatient acute rehabilitation 
criteria and has been recommended by the interdisciplinary team. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 
the IRF care is not medically necessary, and the enrollee's needs can be met at a lower level of care such as a 
skilled nursing 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 enrollee does not require intensive rehabilitation for two therapies as required per 
Medicare rules. The enrollee can improve or maintain mobility with repetitive exercise and does not require 
intensive or daily physical therapy. The enrollee does not require speech therapy and shows limited 
participation with occupational 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for subsequent nursing facility care provided from July 5, 2022 to  
July 21, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for subsequent nursing facility care. You say that the services were medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that there is inadequate documentation provided to 
support the medical necessity for repeat professional visits at a frequency exceeding Medicare guidelines. 
 
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 not provided a valid rule to support the denial. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for subsequent nursing facility care provided from July 5, 2022 
to July 21, 2022.  
 
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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for subsequent nursing facility care provided on September 22, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for subsequent nursing facility care. You say that the services were medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that there is inadequate documentation provided to 
support the medical necessity for repeat professional visits at a frequency exceeding Medicare guidelines. 
 
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 not provided a valid Medicare rule to substantiate the 
denial. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for subsequent nursing facility care provided on 
September 22, 2022.  
 
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 continuous glucose monitor (CGM). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a continuous glucose monitor (CGM). You say that you would like to 
request reconsideration of the denied authorization. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the criteria for 
approval have not been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that therapeutic CGMs are considered medically 
reasonable and necessary for enrollees with diabetes who use insulin with at least three daily administrations, 
require frequent self-adjustment of insulin dosage based on the blood glucose testing results and have had an 
in-person visit with their treating physician to assess adherence to their CGM regimen and diabetes treatment 
plan. 
 
 We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The documentation indicates that the enrollee does not use insulin 
with at least three daily injections. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of a 
continuous glucose monitor (CGM) have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pre-approve a continuous glucose monitor (CGM).
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for definitive urine drug testing (UDT) for 22 or more drug 
classes (CPT Code G0483) provided to the enrollee on August 18, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. You say that the treating physician determined this service was 
medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the number of definitive urine drug classes 
requested are not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that items and services that are not medically 
necessary are not covered.  
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pay for the services. Our reviewer says that the 
requested services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found that there is no documentation that suggests she is using illicit medications or diverting. The medical 
record sent by the provider shows a definitive UDT panel for multiple drug classes was performed but does not 
show screening test results which are positive or inconsistent with prescription medications, dosing schedules, 
or history and expected results. 
 
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 pay for definitive urine drug testing (UDT) for 22 or more drug classes (CPT Code G0483) provided to 
the enrollee on August 18, 2022.