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 will require continued medical 
management of comorbidities and polypharmacy needs, as well as daily physical and occupational therapies to 
address current deficit. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an intensive rehabilitation program 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 clinical documentation shows that the enrollee has complex functional 
impairments however there are no specified active medical comorbidities thus they would not be expected to 
require inpatient hospitalization with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation in an IRF 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 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: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health services provided from April 21, 2022, to 
May 20, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the home health services as billed. You say that you would like this claim 
reprocessed and approved for payment. 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 of the first period of care 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 April 21, 2022, to May 20, 2022.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health services provided from February 20, 2022, 
to March 21, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the home health services as billed. You say that you would like this claim 
reprocessed and approved for payment. 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 of the first period of care 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 20, 2022, to March 21, 2022.
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 you would like this claim 
reprocessed and approved for 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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a shoulder arthroscopy with a balloon spacer. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a shoulder arthroscopy with a balloon spacer. You say that this procedure is 
medically necessary for the enrollee's condition. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested 
service is considered experimental as it is not identified as widely used and generally accepted for the proposed 
use as reported in nationally recognized peer-reviewed medical literature. 
 
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 shoulder arthroscopy with a balloon 
spacer. Our reviewer says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and 
necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee is a 62-year-old female being treated for 
full-thickness rotator cuff tear on the left. She presented with pain and limited motion. The exam reveals she 
has very little abduction and forward flexion with significant pain. In this case, there is limited published, 
large-scale, long-term peer-reviewed literature that shows this request to be an effective and/or safe treatment 
for the noted pathology. Further studies are needed to support that the requested In Space procedure is as safe 
and effective as the standard care in this clinical scenario. There is no compelling rationale presented or extenuating circumstances noted to support the medical necessity of this request as an exception. Therefore, the 
requested shoulder arthroscopy with a balloon spacer, in this case, 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 a shoulder arthroscopy with a balloon spacer have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a shoulder arthroscopy with a balloon spacer.
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 the enrollee is working with therapy and making 
improvements. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says a SNF admission is not medically necessary, and 
the enrollee's needs can be safely managed at an alternate 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 not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found that the enrollee does not have daily skilled nursing needs that require the specialized 
skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional nurse. The enrollee does not have daily skilled therapy 
needs that require the specialized skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional therapist. The 
enrollee does not require daily skilled nursing or skilled therapy on an inpatient basis in a SNF setting. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of SNF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve 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 you would like reconsideration because the services 
are medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an IRF admission is not medically 
necessary, and your needs can be met at an alternate 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 that the enrollee does not require the intensity of services provided at an IRF.  
Specifically, the enrollee is not shown to require fifteen hours per week of rehabilitative services and regular 
physician evaluation.  The enrollees care needs can be met 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 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 long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that LTACH care is medically reasonable 
and necessary for the enrollee's condition. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the rules for LTACH 
care have not been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that LTACH services are covered if they are medically 
necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the LTACH services. Our reviewer says 
that the requested LTACH care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found that the enrollee is currently undergoing treatment at an acute care hospital (ACH) 
for a sacral ulcer. The enrollee is not intubated/ventilated. There is no evidence that the enrollee requires 
services that are not currently available. As LTACHs and ACHs are licensed to provide the same level of care, 
there is no advantage in transferring the enrollee to the LTACH. The enrollee can remain at the current ACH 
until such time no acute services are required. The enrollee can then be transferred/discharged to a lower level 
of care for any ongoing LTC 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 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve foot orthotics. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve foot orthotics. You say that these inserts are medically necessary for you to 
regain maximum use of your feet. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this item is not a covered 
benefit. 
 
Medicare rules state that supportive devices for the feet (such as orthotics) are only covered for patients with 
diabetic foot disease or for patients who wear a leg brace. The Plan follows these same rules.   
 
Records show that you do not suffer from diabetic foot disease, and you do not wear a leg brace. Although 
orthotics may be appropriate for you, neither Medicare nor the Plan provides coverage of orthotics for your 
condition. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve foot orthotics.
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 medical records were submitted to support medical 
necessity. 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 complexity of the patient's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. 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 acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the patient requires close ongoing medical 
management. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says criteria for admission to the Acute Inpatient 
Rehabilitation setting have not been met. The Plan also says that the enrollee's ongoing skilled therapy and 
nursing needs can be provided at a lower level of care such as at a Skilled Nursing Facility, on an intermittent 
basis at home with home health care, or in a long-term care setting. 
 
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 does not require the intensity of services provided at an IRF. Our 
physician reviewer also found that the enrollee's care needs can be met at a lower level of care, such as a skilled 
nursing facility (SNF). 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you say that you have been in the hospital for thirty-
seven days and are ready for rehab. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an IRF admission is not 
medically necessary, and your needs can be met at an alternate 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 that you are medically stable and do not require close supervision for the ongoing 
management of any active or acute exacerbations of chronic medical conditions. While you can benefit from 
physical and occupational therapy, your needs can be safely provided in an alternate level of care such as a 
skilled nursing facility. 
 
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: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve additional home health aide visits. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the aide services. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says continued monitoring of your stable condition without an endpoint is not medically 
necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that HHA services may be covered if it is medically 
necessary for the enrollee to receive skilled nursing or therapy.  
 
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 aide services. Our reviewer says 
that the services are not medically reasonable and necessary. Our physician reviewer found that in this case, the 
documentation doesnt support that you require additional skilled nursing services or skilled rehab services to 
provide treatment that is medically necessary. You do not require additional skilled nursing or rehab services to 
effectively provide treatment, care, and/or services in order to improve your condition, perform a maintenance program to maintain your condition and/or prevent deterioration. You have been medically stable without any 
recent exacerbations of chronic medical problems or hospitalizations. You have been authorized previously to 
have 8 sessions of skilled rehab, 8 home health aide visits and 3 skilled nursing visits. The requested additional 
home health services are not medically 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 aide services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve additional home health aide visits.
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 needs around the clock nursing for 
safety, patient education on disease processes, monitor of vital signs and medication administration. You say 
that the enrollee requires daily physician oversight for their left femur fracture, pubis fracture, anemia, acute 
kidney failure and pain. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an IRF admission 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 acute IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve six (6) office visits and treatment to be provided by an 
out of-network provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the out-of-network services. You say that the enrollee wants to have regular 
foot care services from this provider who visits their assisted living facility once a month. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says there is an in-network provider that can perform the services the enrollee needs. 
 
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) office visits and treatment to be provided by an out of-network provider.