Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a lightweight portable motorized/power wheelchair. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the wheelchair. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the records do not show a home evaluation. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that a PMD will not be covered if the patient does not 
have mobility deficit that impairs their participation in MRADLs, the patients condition can be ameliorated by 
a walker, cane or manual wheelchair, or the patient is not capable of safely operating the requested PMD.  
 
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 wheelchair. Our reviewer says that 
the requested wheelchair is not medically reasonable or necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee is able to use a cane, and may need to use a walker. The records do not support that the enrollee 
requires a power wheelchair. 
 
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 wheelchair have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a lightweight portable motorized/power wheelchair.
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 will benefit from an inpatient hospital 
rehabilitation stay with medical oversight for the enrollee's medical conditions. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says the records does not show the enrollee would be able to take part in therapy treatments for at 
least three hours each day on five days each week and does not show you need medical treatments requiring 
this level of care, services could be more appropriately provided in 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 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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the intracept procedure (22869 and 22870). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the intracept procedure. You say that the services are medically necessary. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says unproven and not medically necessary procedures are not covered 
by Medicare due to insufficient evidence of efficacy. 
 
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 intracept procedure. Our reviewer 
says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) shows facet degenerative joint disease (DJD) 
and foraminal stenosis. The cause of back pain is unclear. 
 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 intracept procedure have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve the intracept procedure (22869 and 22870).
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say an IRF admission is necessary because the enrollee is too 
weak and is unable to care for themself. You also say the enrollee needs IRF services to help regain their 
strength. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested IRF admission 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 enrollee's nursing, medical, and rehabilitation needs does 
not require an acute 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, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While the enrollee may have a need for physical 
therapy 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 
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 an IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for initial hospital care (procedure code 99223) rendered on 
January 12, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. You say that this should be paid for. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says the records do not support the services billed. 
 
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 99223 is "Initial hospital care, per day, for the evaluation 
and management of a patient, which requires these 3 key components: A comprehensive history; A 
comprehensive examination; and Medical decision making of high complexity. Counseling and/or coordination 
of care with other physicians, other qualified health care professionals, or agencies are provided consistent with 
the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the problem(s) requiring 
admission are of high severity. Typically, 70 minutes are spent at the bedside and on the patient's hospital floor 
or unit." 
 
We asked our coder 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 services at issue in 
this case were not supported by the medical records. Our reviewer found that the records do not support a 
comprehensive history or examination. The records only show a limited plan. The key elements for using this 
code are absent. 
 
We looked at this coder'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 initial hospital care (procedure code 99223) rendered on January 12, 2022.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve skilled nursing facility care to be provided by an out-of-
network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve OON skilled nursing facility care. You say that you would like to go to the 
requested facility. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there are in-network providers able to provide 
these 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 
skilled nursing facility care 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 spine surgery, C2-C7 laminectomy and fusion (22600, 
22614, 20930, 20936). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a spine surgery, C2-C7 laminectomy and fusion. You say that the services 
are necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says medical necessity has not been established. 
Therefore, coverage criteria have not been met. 
 
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 spine surgery, C2-C7 laminectomy 
and fusion. Our reviewer says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and 
necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found the records do not show correlation between imaging and 
physical exam findings showing radiculopathy or myelopathy. There is no spinal instability demonstrated on imaging. 
 
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 spine surgery, C2-C7 laminectomy and fusion have not been met. Therefore, 
we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a spine surgery, C2-C7 laminectomy and fusion (22600, 
22614, 20930, 20936).
Appeal type: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve additional trips for routine transportation beyond the 
Plan's 50-trip limit. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve additional routine transportation. You say that you need additional trips for 
radiation therapy. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested trips exceed your trip limit. 
 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 50 trips per year.  
 
We looked at your request, the records in the case file, and the rules. Based on this information, we decided 
that the requested number of trips will exceed the Plan maximum benefit for coverage of routine transportation. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve additional trips for routine transportation 
beyond the Plan's 50-trip limit.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the home ventilator (E0466). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the home ventilator. You say that the ventilator is necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the ventilator is not 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 the home ventilator. Our physician 
reviewer found Medicare does not cover a home ventilator when used at settings that can be provided with bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP). Of note, the enrollee previously had a home ventilator that was 
removed because of inadequate 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 the home ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve the home ventilator (E0466).
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 inpatient rehabilitation facility 
admission for medical necessity. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's records do not 
show the need for an intensive team for care, services needed can be provided safely in other settings, a skilled 
nursing facility, 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 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve proton beam therapy. 
 
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 that the services are not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that if there are no specific coverage rules for an item 
or service, then that item or service will be covered when it is medically necessary.  
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve these services. Our reviewer says that 
the services are medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the most recent National Comprehensive 
Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines acknowledge that proton beam therapy should be considered and that the 
doses needed to treat chordomas are high. Proton beam therapy is within the standard of care for the enrollee's 
diagnosis and is reasonable and medically necessary at this time. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of these services have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-
approve proton beam therapy.  
 
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: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for home health services provided on October 30, 2022, to 
November 5, 2022, by a non-participating provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the home health services. You say that the services should be covered as the 
enrollee disagrees with the denial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services denied correctly as 
they were provided at a facility that does not participate with Medicare. The record indicates that the enrollee 
was not referred to this facility by a provider in our network. 
 
  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 nor do they participate with 
Medicare. 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 the home 
health services provided on October 30, 2022, to November 5, 2022, by a non-participating provider.
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 prior to a fall 
the enrollee was independent and would like to go to rehab. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
enrollee does not meet the Medicare 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 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: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you are appealing this denial. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says criteria for admission to an IRF 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 your nursing, medical, and rehabilitation needs does not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. You do not 
require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an 
intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While you may have a need for physical therapy 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. 
 
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 an IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve Nivolumab and Ipilimumab. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Nivolumab and Ipilimumab. You say that the services are necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says that based on the documentation provided, coverage criteria has not 
been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare may pay for unlabeled uses for anti-cancer 
drugs if they are medically accepted as safe and effective or appropriate for the particular use.  
 
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 Nivolumab and Ipilimumab. Our 
reviewer says that the services are medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the use of the requested 
drugs are supported by one of the major drug compendia or by clinical research that appears in a CMS-
approved medical journal. The documentation does support that the requested drugs are safe and effective and 
otherwise reasonable and necessary for this enrollee. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Nivolumab and Ipilimumab have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
has to pre-approve Nivolumab and Ipilimumab.  
 
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.