Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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 admission to an LTACH is medically
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the admission to an LTACH 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 is no documentation provided necessitating admission to a LTACH. You are
receiving appropriate care at the present acute care hospital. You do not require services at the LTACH that are
not available at the present setting where you are currently receiving care. There are no services available at the
LTACH that you require that are not available at the 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 LTACH services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the cost share for the specialist office visit (99213), injection 
(64616), and botulinum toxin (J0585) provided on March 5, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the cost share for the office visit and botox injections. You say that you would like 
reconsideration because you were told that the Plan would cover all of the cost share for these services. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the cost sharing amount has been applied 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 $40 
copayment for specialist office visits and 20% coinsurance for Medicare Part B Drugs.  
 
You have been asked to pay $40 for the office visit and injection. This is the appropriate copayment.  
 
You have been asked to pay $145.51 for the Botulinum Toxin Injection (J0585). The allowed amount for this 
injection is $727.56. $727.56x.2=$145.51. The correct coinsurance has been applied. 

You have been asked to pay $97.01 for the second Botulinum Toxin Injection (J0585). The allowed amount for 
this injection is $485.04. $485.04x.2=$97.01. The correct coinsurance has been applied.  
 
You have been asked to pay $282.52 for the office visit and botox injections. These services fall within the 
Physician Service and Medicare Part B Prescription Drug benefit categories. 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 cost share for the specialist office visit (99213), injection (64616), and botulinum toxin (J0585) 
provided on March 5, 2021.
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 admission to an IRF is medically
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested admission to an IRF 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 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 documentation does support a need for physical and/or
occupational therapy, there is no documented need for an intensive, multi-disciplinary 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 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. You say that LTACH Admission is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee can receive the same services at the current 
level of 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 the documentation does not support that the enrollee in this case requires services at 
the LTACH that are not available at the acute care hospital where he is currently receiving care. There are no 
required medical services identified that are available at the LTACH, 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: 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 IRF admission is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says your needs can be met at a different level of care. 
 
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 based on the medical records provided the complexity of your nursing, medical and 
rehabilitation needs do not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to 
rehabilitation care. It is not clear you would be able to fully benefit and/or participate in an IRF 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: 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 daily
skilled services are not necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee was at her baseline with Dementia
and not expected to progress to a higher level to require daily skilled therapies in an inpatient setting.
Documentation does not support the need for an admission to an SNF. The enrollee's rehab needs can be met at
a lower intensity level such as in a long-term care (LTC) facility with intermittent therapies as needed.

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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a therapeutic continuous glucose monitor (CGM). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve therapeutic CGM. You say that you are appealing with supporting records. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the Medicare criteria for a therapeutic 
CGM. 
 
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 perform blood 
glucose testing at least four times per day, use insulin with at least three daily injections, require frequent self-
adjustment of insulin dosage based on the blood glucose testing results, have had an in-person visit with their 
treating physician to assesses adherence to their CGM regimen and diabetes treatment plan. Based on this 
information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of therapeutic CGM have not been met. Therefore, 
we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a therapeutic continuous glucose monitor (CGM).
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 IRF admission is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says your needs can be met at a different level of care. 
 
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 based on the medical records provided the complexity of your nursing, medical and 
rehabilitation needs do not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to 
rehabilitation care. It is not clear you would be able to fully benefit and/or participate in an IRF 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 acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the requested admission to an IRF is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested admission to an IRF 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 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 documentation does support a need for physical and/or 
occupational therapy, there is no documented need for an intensive, multi-disciplinary 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 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 inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee is rapidly declining and requires a 
comprehensive rehabilitation team. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the denial of authorization for 
IRF service is correct. 
 
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. While the 
enrollee does require physical and/or occupational therapy, based on the records provided the enrollee does not 
require an intensive inpatient rehabilitation therapy program. There is concern that the enrollee will not 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve outpatient dialysis services and a dialysis procedure 
including one evaluation to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve outpatient dialysis services and a dialysis procedure including one 
evaluation to be provided by an OON provider. You say that the services are necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says there are in-network providers that are able to provide these services. Therefore, 
coverage criteria have not been met. 
 
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 
outpatient dialysis services and a dialysis procedure including one evaluation to be provided by an out-of-
network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a MyoPro Orthotic Device (L8702).

You asked the Plan to pre-approve the orthotic device. You say that the services are medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says MyoPro Orthotic Device is experimental and investigational.

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 orthotic device. Our reviewer says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found the medical records from the ordering physician do not include the information to establish the medical necessity and reasonableness, as defined by Medicare rules, of the requested service. The elements of the coverage criteria are not satisfied. 

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 orthotic device have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a MyoPro Orthotic Device (L8702).
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve expandable controller, harness and connection for a power wheelchair (E2377, E2313, E2311).

You asked the Plan to pre-approve the wheelchair components. You say that the wheelchair components are necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says they will overturn the request for a group 3 power wheelchair, but you do not meet coverage criteria for the additional wheelchair components.

The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that he expanded controller components (E2377, E2313, E2311) are requested to control power options through the expandable controller. Because the member has adequate upper extremity strength and is independent with UE ADLs, he is able to the control the three power options with their own switches, there is no need to control the power option through an expandable controller. This upper extremity function is adequate to control the power options using their own switch which are included in the allowance of these power options. 

We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the wheelchair components have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve expandable controller, harness and connection for a power wheelchair (E2377, E2313, E2311).
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 admission to an IRF is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested admission to an IRF 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 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 documentation does support a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for an intensive, multi-disciplinary 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 inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the problem focused limited oral evaluation (D0140), first intraoral periapical x-ray (D0220), guided tissue regeneration (D4266), surgical extraction (D7210), and bone replacement graft for ridge preservation (D7953) provided on March 4, 2021 by an OON provider.

You asked the Plan to pay for the dental services. You say that these services were an emergency and you would like to be reimbursed. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says these services were rendered by an OON provider.

Medicare generally does not cover dental services. However, the Plan offers a dental benefit that exceeds Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plan's coverage rules apply in this case. 

Though the Plan offers a dental benefit in excess of Medicare coverage, the requested items or services are not covered when they are received OON. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the problem focused limited oral evaluation (D0140), first intraoral periapical x-ray (D0220), guided tissue regeneration (D4266), surgical extraction (D7210), and bone replacement graft for ridge preservation (D7953) provided on March 4, 2021 by an OON provider.