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 you are requesting reconsideration for the denial of 
a SNF admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the SNF services requested do not meet the 
requirements for approval. 
 
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 you do not have daily skilled nursing needs that require the specialized skill, 
knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional nurse. You do not have daily skilled therapy needs that 
require the specialized skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional therapist. You do not require 
daily skilled nursing and/or skilled therapy on an inpatient basis in a skilled nursing facility (SNF) setting. 
Your functional status does not require a SNF admission. You have skilled needs which are managed at an 
outpatient level. 
 
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 acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the services are medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says ongoing skilled care can be provided in an alternative setting. 
 
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 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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for hematoma drainage provided on October 19, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for hematoma drainage. You say that the service was not available in-network. 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 hematoma drainage 
provided on October 19, 2022.
Appeal type: Testing
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) (43235). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve an EGD. You say that you would like the EGD to be approved for 
evaluation of the enrollee's refractory symptoms. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this service is 
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 pre-approve an EGD. Our reviewer says that the 
requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found an 8-week proton pump inhibitor (PPI) trial of daily, provider-directed treatment with re-
evaluation is warranted before the enrollee can be deemed PPI-refractory. The provided record as written does 
not specify that the enrollee's frequency of Nexium use has been daily. Our reviewer found that rather, as 
written, available records suggest the enrollee's use of low-dose Nexium may be patient-initiated and taken as 
needed instead. Available records further do not support re-evaluation on daily PPI, nor that the enrollee's 
provider advised that they optimize dose and daily frequency of PPI use, at the time phone contact was made 
on February 24, 2023. Our physician reviewer found that as such, the enrollee does not meet medical necessity 
criteria for a failed 8-week daily PPI trial to warrant a medically necessary and appropriate EGD at this 
juncture in this 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 an EGD have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) (43235).
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a vertiflex device placement surgery (22869). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a vertiflex device placement surgery. You say that this service is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this service is considered 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 vertiflex device placement surgery. 
Our reviewer says that the requested service is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. 
Our physician reviewer found this service is considered experimental. 
 
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 vertiflex device placement surgery have not been met. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a vertiflex device placement surgery (22869).
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 11721 billed for date of service September 
13, 2022. You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 11721. You say that medically necessary services were provided 
in good faith. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says payment for code 11721 is bundled into payment for 
code 11055. 
 
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 11721 is a column II code to column I code 11055. The code at issue 
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 
11721 billed for date of service September 13, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 93312 billed for date of service November 
16, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 93312. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says payment for 
code 93312 is bundled into payment for code 00562. 
 
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 93312 
is a column II code to column I code 00562. 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 93312 billed for date of service November 16, 
2022.
Appeal type: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the ambulance response and treatment with no transport 
provided on December 29, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the ambulance response and treatment with no transport. You say that the 
medical records provided support the need for the ambulance transport. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says these services are not a covered benefit. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare does not pay for ambulance services when 
there is no transport.  
 
 The ambulance company did not provide transport services on December 29, 2021. The ambulance benefit is a 
transportation benefit. When there is no transport, neither Medicare nor the Plan pays for the services provided. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the ambulance response and treatment with no 
transport provided on December 29, 2021.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 11721 billed for date of service September 
14, 2022. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 11721. You say that the physician provided medically necessary 
services, so this code should be covered. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says payment for code 11721 
is bundled into payment for code 11055. 
 
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 11721 
is a column II code to column I code 11055. 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 11721 billed for date of service September 14, 
2022.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for wound care supplies provided on July 08, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for wound care supplies. You say that these supplies do not require separate 
authorization. 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 wound care supplies 
provided on July 08, 2022.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain and 
neck to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve an MRI of the brain and neck. You say that this is medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says this is not urgent or emergent and is not a specialized service that is 
not available in the network. There are in-network providers that can provide this service. 
 
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 
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain and neck to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a sacral nerve radiofrequency ablation. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a sacral nerve radiofrequency ablation. You say that this service is 
medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this service is considered 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 sacral nerve radiofrequency ablation. 
Our reviewer says that the requested service is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. 
Our physician reviewer found this service is considered experimental. 
 
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 sacral nerve radiofrequency ablation have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a sacral nerve radiofrequency ablation.
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 requires medical management of a 
physical medicine and rehabilitation physician. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does 
not meet the criteria for admission to an inpatient rehabilitation facility. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: 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. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
enrollee is receiving appropriate in-patient acute care and is currently unstable for transfer to a long term acute 
care. 
 
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 there are no services available at the LTACH that the enrollee requires that are not 
available at the current health care setting being offered by the health plan. 
 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: Outpatient Therapies
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve 12 additional physical therapy visits. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve physical therapy visits. You say that therapy is important because it can help 
you get up from a seated position, being able to climb stairs and walk normal. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says 12 additional physical therapy visits are not medically necessary. 
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for medically necessary outpatient 
therapy. 
 
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 physical therapy visits. Our reviewer 
says that skilled services are not necessary to restore or maintain function or to prevent deterioration of the 
enrollee's condition. Our physician reviewer found that you have a chronic condition, which requires repetitive 
exercise to maintain your function. Although you have received a course of therapy, there is limited capacity 
for improvement and physical therapy will not resolve your impairments. You are able to do a home exercise 
program and continued input from a skilled therapist 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 physical therapy visits have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve 12 additional physical therapy visits.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a home ventilator (E0466). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a home ventilator. You say that the enrollee meets Medicare guidelines. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says claims for ventilators used to provide continuous positive airway 
pressure (CPAP) or bi-level CPAP therapy will be denied as 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 this device is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that in this case, the record indicates 
that the enrollee has chronic respiratory failure from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The record 
indicates that the enrollee has not failed bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) treatment with the requested 
settings. The provided primary source documentation does not contain sufficient detailed information in the 
medical record to justify the treatment selected. The enrollee could be treated with a BiPAP machine with 
average volume-assured pressure support (AVAPS) capability.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of a home ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a home ventilator (E0466).
Appeal type: 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 enrollee has dementia and a history of mini 
strokes so getting blood pressure stable was very important and is not stable yet. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says the documentation fails to indicate that the enrollee has any daily skilled nursing needs. 
 
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 daily skilled nursing needs that require the specialized 
skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional nurse. The enrollee does not have daily skilled therapy 
needs that require the specialized skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional therapist. The 
enrollee does not require daily skilled nursing and/or skilled therapy on an inpatient basis in a skilled nursing 
facility (SNF) setting. 
 
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.