Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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's clinical condition meets full inpatient 
acute rehab criteria which the lower level of care in skilled nursing cannot provide. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the IRF 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 clinical documentation shows that the enrollee has some active medical 
issues however, there are no complex functional impairments or IRF compliant diagnosis specified. The 
complexity of the enrollee's documented nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs would not be expected to 
require continued acute hospitalization with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve six (6) consultation follow-up visits to be provided by 
an out-of-network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve consultation follow-up visits. You say that the enrollee had liver cancer 
which has now spread to his kidneys. The enrollee has continued to see a provider from the requested medical 
center for follow up visits for his liver. The enrollee would like to see a provider at the same facility who will 
be treating his kidneys to streamline the process. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says information in 
the request from the provider does not show that these services are for an emergency or cannot be provided by 
physicians, hospitals or providers who are in the Plan's network. 
 
Medicare rules say that plans can require enrollees to get care from network providers. The contract with the 
Plan says that the Plan has to 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 
six (6) consultation follow-up visits to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an office visit (99205) to be provided by an out-of-
network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve an office visit. You say that you disagree with the denial. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says you must use network providers to get your medical care and services. There are 
in-network providers available. 
 
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 
an office visit (99205) to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a genicular nerve block (64454) for knee pain. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the injection. You say that you want to appeal this denial. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the requested injection is not medically necessary. 
 
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 injection. Our reviewer says that the 
requested genicular nerve block is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the requested injection is considered experimental and investigational. Therefore, the 
reviewer found that a genicular nerve block for knee pain 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 injection have not been met.  
 
 
  
 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a genicular nerve block (64454) for knee 
pain.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that you want to continue receiving skilled nursing care. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that you do not meet criteria for continued SNF level of care. 
 
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 considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found you do have documented skilled therapy needs. The weight-bearing restriction has 
been lifted and you are functioning below your baseline. Daily skilled services are reasonably required to return 
you to your prior level of function, establish a maintenance program and/or to prevent further deterioration of 
your condition. 
 
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 been met. The Plan must continue coverage for the SNF skilled 
service until such time as the enrollee no longer needs the service and proper notice has been issued, or the 
100-day Medicare benefit is exhausted. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-approve skilled nursing 
facility (SNF) care.  
 
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: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the laboratory services related to end-stage renal disease 
(ESRD) provided on June 27, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the ESRD-related laboratory services. You say that at this time, there is no 
contractual agreement which indicates that these tests should be included in the dialysis rate. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says Medicare does not separately pay for ESRD-related laboratory testing. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules state that routine ESRD laboratory services are not 
separately payable. Laboratories should bill the facility directly for laboratory services as they are considered 
part of the composite rate. No other payment for these services is allowed. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pay for the laboratory services related to end-stage renal disease (ESRD) provided on June 27, 
2022.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code(s) 88341, 88342, 88360 and 88381 billed for 
date of service February 1, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code(s) 88341, 88342, 88360 and 88381. You say that these services 
were necessary and are supported as billed. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this code is included 
in the facility payment and is not separately payable. The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Technical components must be billed by the facility where the enrollee was an inpatient or outpatient and are 
not separately payable to the lab. 
 
The records indicate that the specimen was taken while the enrollee was an inpatient or outpatient. Per the 
Physician Fee Schedule, there is a Professional/Technical indicator of 1 for CPT code(s) 88341, 88342, 88360 
and 88381. This means there is both a professional and technical component for the CPT code(s). In this case, 
an appropriate modifier to indicate the professional component has not been billed with CPT code(s) 88341, 
88342, 88360 and 88381. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of procedure 
code 88341, 88342, 88360 and 88381 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pay for procedure code(s) 88341, 88342, 88360 and 88381 billed for date of service February 1, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Image-Guided Radiation Therapy (IGRT). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IGRT. You say that the services are necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says medical necessity has not been established. Therefore, coverage criteria have not been 
met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that items and services that are not medically 
necessary are not covered.  
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IGRT. Our reviewer says that the 
requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found certainly using ultrasound on a daily basis is not unreasonable to offer but not necessary. The 
device itself is FDA approved for use with ultrasound though that in and of itself does not mean that daily 
imaging is necessary but simply that the device was designed to incorporate this functionality. Therefore, to bill 
for daily simple simulations and/or IGRT for a technology for which need has not been established by 
published data or supported by consensus guidelines is not necessary. Billing for daily IGRT which would not 
be furnished in accordance with accepted standards of medical practice. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of IGRT have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pre-approve Image-Guided Radiation Therapy (IGRT).
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a MyoPro Motion G (L8702). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a MyoPro Motion G. You say that the item is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says this item is considered experimental. 
 
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 MyoPro Motion G. Our reviewer says 
that the requested item is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found the MyoPro Orthosis is not known to be effective, based on scientific evidence, professional 
standards and expert opinion, in improving health outcomes. This is not the standard of care for this patient's 
condition or in widespread use for this patient's condition based on scientific evidence. There is insufficient 
evidence in the literature that the MyoPro Orthosis will improve the long term outcomes for this patient or 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 MyoPro Motion G have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve a MyoPro Motion G (L8702).
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a continuous glucose monitor. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a continuous glucose monitor. You say that a continuous glucose monitor is 
medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the medical criteria for continuous glucose 
monitor 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 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 a continuous glucose monitor have not been met. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a continuous glucose monitor.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the injections provided on August 8, 2022, by an out-of-
network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the outpatient services. You say that the services were medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says prior authorization was not obtained. 
 
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 injections provided on August 8, 2022, by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee requires an IRF level of care. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says IRF care is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found that the complexity of the enrollees nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does 
not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. Medical 
problems are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. 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. 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: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health services provided from February 10, 2023, 
to March 11, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the home health services as billed. You say that you disagree with the Plan's 
denial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the claim has not been billed with the correct admission 
date. 
 The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that for home health services that are continuing from 2021, a 
NOA must be submitted for the first period of care in 2022, using the first date of the period as the admission 
date. Subsequent claims must report this new date as the admission date in order for the claim to be matched to 
the correct NOA.  
 
We reviewed the file and the Medicare rules. We find that the admission date reported on the claim at issue 
does not match the date for the NOA which is filed for the first date in 2022 as required. Based on this 
information, we find that the Medicare rules for payment of the claim at issue have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health services provided from February 10, 2023, to 
March 11, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a referral to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) 
provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a referral 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 
a referral to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the laboratory services related to end-stage renal disease 
(ESRD) provided on June 22, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the ESRD-related laboratory services. You say that there is no contractual 
agreement between the laboratory and the dialysis facility regarding payment. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says Medicare does not separately pay for ESRD-related laboratory testing. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules state that routine ESRD laboratory services are not 
separately payable. Laboratories should bill the facility directly for laboratory services as they are considered 
part of the composite rate. No other payment for these services is allowed. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pay for the laboratory services related to end-stage renal disease (ESRD) provided on June 22, 
2022.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an implantable loop recorder (ILR). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve an implantable loop recorder (ILR). You say that the requested ILR is 
medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet criteria for the 
requested implantable loop recorder (ILR). 
 
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 an implantable loop recorder (ILR). 
Our reviewer says that the enrollee does not meet criteria for the requested implantable loop recorder (ILR). 
Our physician reviewer found 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. 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 an implantable loop recorder (ILR) have not been met. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an implantable loop recorder (ILR).