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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a knee orthosis, double upright, thigh and calf, with 
adjustable flexion and extension joint (unicentric or polycentric), medial-lateral and rotation control, with or 
without varus/valgus adjustment (L1845). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a knee orthosis. You say that you are in pain, and you need this orthosis. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you do not meet approval for coverage of the requested orthosis. 
 
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 knee orthosis. Our reviewer says that 
the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found Medicare does not pay for any items or services that are not reasonable and necessary for the 
diagnosis or treatment of illness or injury or to improve the functioning of a malformed body member. The 
request exceeds your medical needs.  You have not had recent injury to or a surgical procedure on the knee(s). 
You are ambulatory but have objective knee instability documented with an objective description of joint laxity 
(e.g., varus/valgus instability, anterior/posterior drawer test). 
 
 
 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 knee orthosis have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a knee orthosis, double upright, thigh and calf, with adjustable flexion and extension joint 
(unicentric or polycentric), medial-lateral and rotation control, with or without varus/valgus adjustment 
(L1845).
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a crutch substitute (E0118). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a crutch substitute. You say that the requested item is a medical necessity 
for you. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested item is experimental/investigational. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that there is insufficient published clinical literature 
demonstrating safety and effectiveness in the Medicare population to establish the medical necessity for a 
crutch substitute.  
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of the crutch substitute have not been met. Specifically, this item is not a covered benefit of Medicare 
or the Plan. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a crutch substitute (E0118).
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for diagnostic radiology services provided to the enrollee on 
April 4, 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 denied codes cannot be verified. 
 
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 the denied codes is: 
 
CPT 75726: 
 
Angiography, visceral, selective or supraselective (with or without flush aortogram), radiological supervision 
and interpretation 
 
 
 CPT 75774: 
 
Angiography, selective, each additional vessel studied after basic examination, radiological supervision and 
interpretation (List separately in addition to code for primary procedure) 
 
CPT 77001: 
 
Fluoroscopic guidance for central venous access device placement, replacement (catheter only or complete), or 
removal (includes fluoroscopic guidance for vascular access and catheter manipulation, any necessary contrast 
injections through access site or catheter with related venography radiologic supervision and interpretation, and 
radiographic documentation of final catheter position) (List separately in addition to code for primary 
procedure) 
 
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 Medicare guidelines specifically 
prohibit the billing of separate angiography charges related to the embolization procedure - CPT 37244. Each 
of the appealed CPT codes which have been denied were part of the reimbursed embolization procedure and 
per Medicare regulations cannot be billed under separate codes. 
 
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 diagnostic radiology services provided to the enrollee on April 4, 2022.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that the requested admission to a SNF is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested admission to a SNF does not meet 
criteria. 
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for care in a SNF when the four factors 
listed in the Medicare rules section are met. Custodial care is not covered. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve SNF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested SNF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found records do not document the need for intravenous medications, new tube feeding, 
ostomy care, daily complex wound care or respiratory care. There is no documentation that daily skilled 
services are required. Although records document the enrollee is very limited functionally, provided records do 
not document a significant decline in the enrollees functional status compared to his recent baseline to 
necessitate daily inpatient skilled therapy services. The enrollee does not require the services on an inpatient 
basis, only in a skilled nursing facility setting. Records do not support that services in the long-term care 
facility on a part time basis are not appropriate in this case. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of SNF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve 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 has had a functional decline from their baseline level of function, but per 
the documentation it is not clear that they can participate in and benefit from the intensity of therapies provided 
on acute inpatient rehabilitation. 
 
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 IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that this is medically necessary for the enrollee. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says according to the available records, the member does not meet all the 
required 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 enrollees medical problems are stable and there are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. There is no documented need for intensive rehabilitation services and 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: 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 services are necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says based on the documentation provided, coverage criteria has not been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that 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 documented skilled nursing or skilled therapy needs. You appear to 
be at/near her baseline. Daily skilled services are not shown to be required to establish a maintenance program 
or to prevent deterioration of your condition. Your care needs can, as a practical matter, be provided at a lower 
level of care. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of 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 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 the enrollee's care can be provided in the current 
inpatient hospital. You may be ready to move to another setting in the future. 
 
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: 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 the enrollee transfer from the 
IRF to a skilled nursing facility. You say that the enrollee is now at a level where their medical status has 
improved and can be managed at a subacute rehab level. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the SNF 
services you are requesting 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 the medical records do not document the need for daily inpatient skilled nursing 
services. Continued daily therapy services in the acute facility appear indicated. Records do not support that 
continued services in the acute facility are not appropriate until the patient is stable to transfer to a lower level 
of care such as home with home health 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 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 long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the enrollee requires an LTACH level of 
care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the LTACH admission 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 the provided documentation does not support that the enrollee requires services at the 
LTACH that are not available at the acute care hospital where they are currently receiving care. The reviewer 
found that 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. Therefore, the reviewer found that the requested LTACH 
care is not medically reasonable or 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 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 IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee will receive the appropriate level of care 
in an IRF. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request 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 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 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. You say that the enrollee meets LTACH admission 
criteria and the enrollee's ongoing medical care warrants an LTAC level of care to achieve a safe and 
sustainable discharge The Plan denied your request. The Plan says LTACH is not medically necessary, and the 
enrollee's needs are being met at the current care facility 
 
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 does not require services at the LTACH that are not available at the acute 
care hospital where they are currently receiving care. All medically necessary care is being provided in the 
current acute care 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 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 LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the enrollee would benefit from LTACH 
placement to continue ventilator weaning, transition from parenteral to enteral nutrition, decrease opioid 
utilization and improve strength and mobility. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the criteria for 
admission to the LTACH 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 currently unstable and requires short term additional acute care that 
can be safely met at the current facility. Transfer to the LTACH would not be clinically advantageous at this 
time and completion of treatment at the current facility is recommended. 
 
 
 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 a powered upper extremity range of motion assist 
device, elbow, wrist, hand, finger, single or double upright(s), includes microprocessor, sensors, all 
components, and accessories, custom fabricated (L8702). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a range of motion assist device. You say that the device is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request for a device to help exercise and move the 
enrollee's arm is denied. This is because notes did not support the need for this service. There are no studies 
showing this device is helpful for her condition. 
 
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 range of motion assist device. Our 
reviewer says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this 
case. Our physician reviewer found at this time the requested robotic orthosis is not proven to be more 
beneficial for treatment of the enrollee's medical condition/function of hemiparesis after stroke than any 
available standard therapy such as conventional treatments for post stroke hemiparesis therapy including 
constraint induced movement therapy, conventional muscle strengthening, and Botox for spasticity if needed. The requested device is not reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis or treatment of an illness or injury or to 
improve the functioning of a malformed body member. The MyoPro is not known to be effective, based on 
scientific evidence, professional standards, and expert opinion, in improving health outcomes in stroke patients. 
The MyoPro is not in widespread use based on scientific evidence. There is insufficient evidence in the 
literature that the MyoPro Orthosis will improve the long-term outcomes for this enrollee, improve hemiparetic 
arm function, or be safe for long term use. There is insufficient evidence in the literature that this device will 
increase participation in bimanual activities. 
 
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 range of motion assist device have not been met. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pre-approve a powered upper extremity range of motion assist device, elbow, wrist, 
hand, finger, single or double upright(s), includes microprocessor, sensors, all components, and accessories, 
custom fabricated (L8702).