Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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 you would like reconsideration because the 
requested IRF care is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you do not meet 
Medicare criteria for coverage. 
 
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 your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. There are no complex 
nursing or rehabilitation needs. You do not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical 
therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. 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 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 Vertiflex Superion device. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the Vertiflex Superion device. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 
the Vertiflex Superion device is unproven 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 Vertiflex Superion device. Our 
reviewer says that the Vertiflex Superion device is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this 
case. Our physician reviewer found the Vertiflex Superion device is experimental. More research is 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 the Vertiflex Superion device have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve the Vertiflex Superion device.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve skilled nursing facility services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the skilled nursing facility services. You say that the services are medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 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 the skilled nursing facility services. Our 
reviewer says that daily skilled services are not necessary. Our physician reviewer found the record shows that 
the patient continues to require intense and multi-disciplinary rehabilitation with close medical monitoring, 
from a practical matter a skilled nursing facility would not meet the enrollee's 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 skilled nursing facility services have not been met. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan does not have to pre-approve skilled nursing facility services.
Appeal type: Hospice
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the hospital discharge day management; more than 30 
minutes (99239) provided on June 2, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the evaluation and management service. You say that the provider should be 
paid. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollees claim would be covered under Original 
Medicare as it is responsible for coverage of Part B benefits starting on the date of election until the last day of 
the month in which hospice is revoked. The Plan also says it is the providers responsibility to verify the 
enrollees coverage before rendering services and to know proper billing procedures for a Medicare Advantage 
member on hospice. 
 Medicare rules say that Original Medicare, not the Plan, is responsible for all Medicare-covered non-hospice 
services. Medicare hospice pays for claims related to the terminal illness. The rules say that the Plan may direct 
the provider to bill Medicare directly for these services.  
 
The enrollee was under the Medicare hospice benefit for the dates of service at issue in this appeal. Therefore, 
we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the hospital discharge day management; more than 30 
minutes (99239) provided on June 2, 2021.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the intravenous infusion, for therapy, prophylaxis, or 
diagnosis (96365) and the ferric carboxymaltose injection (J1439) rendered by the out-of-network (OON) 
provider on December 29, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for these services. You say that you are requesting a reconsideration of the Plan's 
denial for payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services were rendered by an out-of-
network provider, without prior authorization. 
 Medicare rules say that plans can require enrollees to get care from network providers. The contract with the 
Plan says that the Plan has to pay for care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving emergencies, 
out of area urgent care and pre-approved care. 
 
The provider in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan had network providers available 
who could have provided the services at issue in this appeal. The Plan did not pre-approve the services at issue. 
We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay for these services. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pay for the intravenous infusion, for therapy, prophylaxis, or diagnosis (96365) and the 
ferric carboxymaltose injection (J1439) rendered by the out-of-network (OON) provider on December 29, 
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 you disagree with the denial. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the services are 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 medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee was admitted to the 
hospital for hip pain after a fall and was discharged home on May 4, 2022. She is now medically stable with no 
complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. She does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While she has a need 
for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documentation of a need for an intensive rehabilitation 
program. 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 inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you would like reconsideration because the 
requested IRF care is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you do not meet 
Medicare criteria for coverage. 
 
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 your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care.  There are no complex 
nursing or rehabilitation needs. You do not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical 
therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. 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 acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to preapprove a folding (pickup) walker provided by an out-of-network 
(OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to preapprove a folding (pickup) walker. You say that you are appealing with supporting 
records. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says per the Plan benefits, the member must use network 
providers to get medical care and services where there are network providers available, and the in-network 
providers were contacted and can provide the requested service. 
 
Medicare rules say that plans can require enrollees to get care from network providers. The contract with the 
Plan says that the Plan has to 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. 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 preapprove a folding (pickup) walker 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 therapeutic continuous glucose monitor (CGM). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a therapeutic CGM. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the criteria for coverage for the CGM have not been met. 
 
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 you do not use insulin with at least 
three daily injections. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of a 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: Hospice
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the supplies for maintenance of non-insulin drug infusion 
catheter, per week (A4221), infusion supplies (A4222), and milrinone lactate (J2260) provided from September 
10, 2021, to October 5, 2021 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the infusion supplies. You say that the services should be covered. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the enrollees claim would be covered under Original Medicare as it is 
responsible for coverage of Part B benefits starting on the date of election until the last day of the month in which hospice is revoked. The Plan also says it is the providers responsibility to verify the enrollees coverage 
before rendering services and to know proper billing procedures for a Medicare Advantage member on hospice. 
 
Medicare rules say that Original Medicare, not the Plan, is responsible for all Medicare-covered non-hospice 
services. Medicare hospice pays for claims related to the terminal illness. The rules say that the Plan may direct 
the provider to bill Medicare directly for these services. Original Medicare is responsible for payment for 
services until the first day of the month after the hospice election has been revoked or terminated. 
 
The enrollee was under the Medicare hospice benefit for the dates of service at issue in this appeal. 
Additionally, the record shows that the enrollee revoked their hospice election on October 4, 2021. The 
services were provided before the end of that month. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay 
for the supplies for maintenance of non-insulin drug infusion catheter, per week (A4221), infusion supplies 
(A4222), and milrinone lactate (J2260) provided from September 10, 2021, to October 5, 2021
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 a therapeutic CGM. You say that this device medically reasonable and 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the criteria for coverage of a CGM have not been met. 
 
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 you do not use insulin with at least 
three daily injections. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of a 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 you would like reconsideration because the 
requested IRF care is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you do not meet 
Medicare criteria for coverage. 
 
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 your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. There are no 
complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. You do not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either 
physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. 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 acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve subcutaneous cardiac rhythm monitor, including 
programming (implanted heart monitor) (CPT code 33285). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the service. You say that the service is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee has not experienced any syncope or other cardiac symptoms, 
and other noninvasive recording devices are available to utilize for monitoring. 
 
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 service. Our reviewer says that at 
issue is the appropriateness and medical necessity of implanting an implantable loop recorder (ILR) in the 
clinical management of this enrollee. The enrollee had no history of atrial fibrillation, nor were any significant 
cardiac arrhythmias noted on electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring. A recent randomized clinical trial found 
that continuous monitoring for atrial fibrillation with an ILR (followed by treatment with oral anticoagulation if 
atrial fibrillation was detected) was not superior to usual care in reducing stroke or systemic embolism among 
patients at high risk of stroke but without a known prior history of atrial fibrillation (1). At this time, insertion 
of an ILR would not be considered medically appropriate and necessary in this enrollees clinical management.  
 
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 service have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve subcutaneous cardiac rhythm monitor, including programming (implanted heart monitor) 
(CPT code 33285).
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve additional routine transportation trips. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the additional trips. You say that this should be paid for. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the established benefit has been exhausted. 
 
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 48 one-way trips per year.  
 
We looked at your request, the records in the case file, and the rules. Based on this information, we decided 
that you have exhausted the Plan maximum benefit for coverage of routine transportation. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve additional routine transportation trips.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve thermal destruction of intraosseous basivertebral nerve, 
including all imaging guidance; each additional vertebral body, lumbar or sacral (CPT code 64629) and thermal 
destruction of intraosseous basivertebral nerve, including all imaging guidance; first 2 vertebral bodies, lumbar 
or sacral (CPT code 64628). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the services. You say that the enrollee's primary problem is chronic low 
back pain due to degenerative disc disease and the pain has had a significant impact on the enrollee's walking. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's request is not medically necessary because there is 
little evidence in the medical literature to suggest that this is an appropriate procedure for the enrollee's back 
pain, especially given their facet arthrosis, spinal stenosis, and disc bulges. The Plan states the requested 
procedure is not an accepted standard of medical practice for the diagnosis or treatment of back pain; therefore, 
it is considered 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 services. Our reviewer says that the 
requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found the intracept procedure is experimental. More research is 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 the services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve thermal destruction of intraosseous basivertebral nerve, including all imaging guidance; 
each additional vertebral body, lumbar or sacral (CPT code 64629) and thermal destruction of intraosseous 
basivertebral nerve, including all imaging guidance; first 2 vertebral bodies, lumbar or sacral (CPT code 
64628).