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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the radiofrequency ablation, nerves innervating the 
sacroiliac joint, with image guidance (64625). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the ablation procedure. You say that you have attached the medical 
necessity clinicals to support the requested procedure. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the clinical 
value and effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation to the SI joint in the setting of SI joint pain have not been 
demonstrated in the peer-reviewed literature. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that items and services that are not medically 
necessary are not covered. The rules also say that experimental and investigational devices are not covered.  
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of the ablation procedure have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pre-approve the radiofrequency ablation, nerves innervating the sacroiliac joint, with image guidance (64625).
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 the requested admission to a LTACH is 
medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request is not medically necessary. 
 
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 health care setting being offered by the health plan. The health plan has approved ongoing care 
in the current acute care setting. 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: 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 you are requesting IRF services so you can 
participate in therapy to regain independence after your hospital stay. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says rules for IRF care have not been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found there are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. While you have a need for 
physical 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 IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a power wheelchair accessory (E2363) provided to the 
enrollee on August 13, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the accessory. You say that this should be paid for. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) code E2363-NU-KX (2 Units) remains 
not supported 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate CPT code. 
 
In this case, the CPT Code Manual definition of Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System code E2363 is 
"Power wheelchair accessory, group 24 sealed lead acid battery, each (e.g., gel cell, absorbed glassmat)." 
 
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 accessory. Our reviewer says that the services at issue in 
this case were not supported by the medical records. Our reviewer found that the documentation doesn't support 
that the enrollee required two units of the requested item therefore it is not coded correctly or medically 
necessary.  
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 accessory have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pay for a power wheelchair accessory (E2363) provided to the enrollee on August 13, 2021.
Appeal type: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for the ambulance services. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for the ambulance services. You say that you cannot afford the 
copayment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you were charged this cost-sharing 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 $305 
copayment for each ambulance trip. You had one ambulance trip. The Plan charged you $305 for these 
services. 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 the ambulance 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 enrollee needs to be admitted for inpatient 
comprehensive interdisciplinary rehabilitation to address the impairments and medical conditions. Admission 
will also assess needs and compensatory strategies with coordinated interdisciplinary services that will include 
physical therapy, occupational therapy, and close monitoring and treatment with 24-hour rehabilitative nursing. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says based on Medicare guidelines the inpatient rehabilitation facility 
services you are requesting do not meet the requirements for approval. 
 
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 was admitted for non-healing wounds of the lower extremity and had a 
below the knee amputation. Medical problems are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. 
While you have a need for physical 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 IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Freestyle Libre 14-day continuous glucose monitors 
(CGM) reader. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a Freestyle Libre 14-day CGM reader. You say that the requested CGM is 
medically necessary for the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested device does not 
meet criteria. 
 
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 and require frequent self-adjustment of insulin dosage based on the blood 
glucose testing results. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of a Freestyle 
Libre 14-day CGM reader have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve 
a Freestyle Libre 14-day continuous glucose monitors (CGM) reader.
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 requesting LTACH services for 
the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says rules for LTACH care have not been met. 
 
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 is receiving appropriate care at the present acute care hospital. The 
enrollee does not require services at the LTACH that are not available at the acute care hospital where the 
enrollee is currently receiving 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 the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve LTACH services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for physician's services provided from February 9, 2022, to 
February 28, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the physician's services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that 
payment is not allowed for code 20610 for surgery services and code J7320 for injection because it is not billed 
with valid CPT-4 code. 
 
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 given us a rule that proves these codes cannot be 
paid as billed. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for physician's services provided from  
February 9, 2022, to February 28, 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: 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 it is medically necessary as the enrollee is bedridden 
and unable to do activities of daily living skills. You say the enrollee is unable to walk and wheelchair bound 
with inability to care for themself. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the 
criteria for approval for the denial of skilled nursing facility admission as it is not deemed medically necessary. 
 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 with a past medical history of hypertension, diabetes and end stage renal 
disease on dialysis who is reported to be bed bound and wheelchair dependent. The enrollee was treated in an 
acute hospital in July 2022 for a gastrointestinal bleed and COVID-19 infection. The enrollee reportedly has 
been at home since discharge from the hospital on July 30, 2022. No reports from home health or physical 
therapy or occupational therapy are provided. There are no specific details with regard to the enrollee's status 
for transfers or activities of daily living are provided. Records do not document the need for intravenous 
medications, new tube feeding or ostomy care or daily complex wound care or respiratory care.  Notes from the 
enrollee's medical provider indicate orders for transfer to a nursing home/extended care facility. 
 
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. Our reviewer also found 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.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the requested IRF care is a medical necessity for the 
enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says medical-necessity rules for IRF care have not been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found that the complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does 
not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care.  While the medical record supports a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documented 
need for intensive rehabilitation services. There is not a reasonable expectation that the enrollee will be able to 
fully participate in and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: 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 you are requesting IRF services so the enrollee can 
safely complete activities after they leave the regular hospital. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 
rules for IRF care have not been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found there are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. While the enrollee has a need 
for physical 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 IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a vacuum-assisted suspension system (VASS). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the system. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the use of this item in amputees is unproven. 
 
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 system. Our reviewer says that the 
requested services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer 
found that the literature reviewed indicates that further research is needed with clinical trials that recruit larger 
sample sizes and report long-term outcome data for the requested elevated vacuum suspension system. This 
system exceeds your medical 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 system have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a vacuum-assisted suspension system (VASS).
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay an additional amount for eyeglasses provided on April 25, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay an additional amount for the eyeglasses. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says that the Plan paid the maximum benefit allowance of $150 for the eyeglasses. 
 
Medicare generally does not cover routine eyewear services. However, the Plan offers a routine eyewear 
benefit that exceeds Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plan's coverage rules apply in this case.  
 
We looked at the file and the Plan's rules. The file shows that the Plan paid the maximum eyewear benefit 
allowance of $150. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay an additional amount for 
eyeglasses provided on April 25, 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 you are requesting IRF services for additional 
medical and physical therapy reasons. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says rules for IRF care have not 
been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found there are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. While you have a need for 
physical 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 IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve percutaneous vertebral augmentation, including cavity 
creation (fracture reduction and bone biopsy included when performed) using mechanical device (eg, 
kyphoplasty), 1 vertebral body, unilateral or bilateral cannulation, inclusive of all imaging guidance; lumbar 
(22514). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the surgery. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the requested service is not medically necessary based on the documentation provided. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that kyphoplasty is covered with evidence of acute or 
subucate vertebral compression fracture.  
 
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 surgery. Our reviewer says that the 
requested services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer 
found that the provided records do not document a lumbar vertebral compression fracture. 
 
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 surgery have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve percutaneous vertebral augmentation, including cavity creation (fracture reduction and 
bone biopsy included when performed) using mechanical device (eg, kyphoplasty), 1 vertebral body, unilateral 
or bilateral cannulation, inclusive of all imaging guidance; lumbar (22514).