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 you need rehab because you cannot take care of 
yourself and there is no one that can assist you. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an IRF admission 
is not medically necessary, and you can safely receive the services you need in other settings. 
 
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 your 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: 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 needs aggressive training for mobility. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an IRF admission is not medically necessary, and the enrollee can 
receive care in another 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 that the enrollee is medically stable and does not require close supervision for the 
ongoing management of any active or acute exacerbations of chronic medical conditions. While the enrollee 
can benefit from physical and occupational therapy, their 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: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve moderate sedation services (99152) and genicular nerve 
block (64454). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the services. You say that the enrollee needs these services. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the requested service is considered experimental/investigational as there is 
insufficient evidence in the medical literature to support coverage 
 
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 services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer 
found that genicular nerve blocks and genicular nerve ablation are considered investigational and not medically 
necessary for the treatment of chronic knee pain, including, but not limited to any of the 
following: degenerative joint disease; osteoarthritis of the knee; as a treatment prior to knee replacement; as a 
treatment following knee replacement; or as a treatment for individuals who are not candidates for knee 
replacement surgery. 
 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 moderate sedation services (99152) and genicular nerve block (64454).
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for skilled nursing facility (SNF) services provided to the 
enrollee from June 5, 2020 to June 9, 2020. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. You say that this was medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the provider has reported skilled services with the incorrect PDPM Health Insurance 
Prospective Payment System (HIPPS) Score. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
 
We asked our coder to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to determine if the 
Plan was correct in denying the request to pay for the services. Our reviewer says that the services at issue in 
this case were not supported by the medical records. Our reviewer found that nfection of the foot is checked on 
the Resident Assessment and Care Screening dated 6/9/2020. However, there is insufficient clinical 
documentation by a provider in the SNF in the case file supporting a diagnosis of infection of the foot and the 
application of dressings to the feet. 
 
We looked at this coder's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pay for skilled nursing facility (SNF) services provided to the enrollee from June 5, 2020 to June 9, 
2020.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Vertiflex device. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a Vertiflex device. 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 a Vertiflex device. Our reviewer says 
that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case.  Our 
physician reviewer found the vertiflex 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 a Vertiflex device have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a Vertiflex device.
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. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says based on Medicare 
guidelines the inpatient rehabilitation facility 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 enrollees nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The enrollee 
was admitted for elective knee replacement. Medical problems are stable. There are no complex nursing or 
rehabilitation needs. While the medical record supports a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there 
is no documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided a 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: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for lab services (0037U) provided on February 9, 2021, by an 
out-of-network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the lab services. You say that this service was medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says coverage criteria has 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 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 services at issue in this appeal. The Plan did not pre-approve the service 
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 lab services (0037U) provided on February 9, 2021, 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 it is felt that IRF care is necessary for this enrollee's 
recovery. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this request is not shown to be 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 enrollee was admitted to the hospital due to osteomyelitis of the right foot who 
required below-the-knee amputation on November 8, 2022. A request was made for discharge to IRF care. As of the time of the request, the enrollee was medically stable and did not need close physician supervision 3 
times per week (at a minimum) for the ongoing management of any active or acute exacerbations of chronic 
medical conditions. There are not acute nursing needs documented. At the current functional level, the enrollee 
does not need 3 hours a day x 5 days a week of therapies with multidisciplinary approach 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 pay for the oncology (melanoma), gene expression profiling (0089U) 
provided on April 20, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the laboratory testing. You say that this is the only specialty laboratory in the 
country that can process the specimen for this test. You also say that this service is medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the service 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 pay for the laboratory testing. Our reviewer says that 
the laboratory testing is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the service is not the standard 
of care. Therefore, the reviewer found that the service is 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 laboratory testing have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pay for the oncology (melanoma), gene expression profiling (0089U) provided on April 20, 
2022.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Nivolumab injection. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the injection. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says there is no clinical evidence to support the medical necessity of this device. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for a drug or biological only if it is safe 
and effective and otherwise reasonable and necessary.  
 
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 injection is not medically reasonable or necessary. Our physician reviewer found that vulvar cancer 
is treated similar to cervical cancer for recurrence. To be eligible for single agent nivolumab PD-L1 would 
need to be >= 1 and there is no testing provided. The service is not reasonable or 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 injection have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a Nivolumab injection.
Appeal type: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve additional routine transportation trips. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve routine transportation. You say that this is needed to go to the dialysis 
facility. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says routine transportation beyond 36 one-way trips per 
calendar year is not covered by the Plan. 
 
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 36 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: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for hospital services provided from February 11, 2021, to February 13, 
2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for hospital services. You say that these services should be paid. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says that this charge is included in the Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) rate. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare health plans must make reasonable and 
diligent efforts to gather and forward to the IRE information regarding its decision to deny coverage or 
payment. 
 
The Plan has not made reasonable and diligent efforts to gather and forward to us information regarding their 
decision to deny your request. Specifically, the Plan has not provided enough claim information or a sufficient 
argument to support the denial of these services. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for hospital 
services provided from February 11, 2021, to February 13, 2021.  
 
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: 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 The Plan denied your request. The Plan says based on Medicare 
guidelines and the information we have about the enrollee's condition they do not meet all the requirements. 
 
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 enrollees nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care.  
 The enrollee was admitted for vertigo, a fall and Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and was 
transferred to a skilled nursing facility on November 29, 2022. The enrollee was then discharged home on 
December 7, 2022.  Medical problems are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. While 
the medical record supports a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for 
intensive rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided a 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: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the enrollee would benefit from long-
term acute care due to medical complexity. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services the 
enrollee needs could be provided in another setting, such as an acute rehabilitation facility, skilled nursing 
facility, nursing facility, outpatient setting or home 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 enrollee is receiving appropriate care at the present acute care hospital. The 
enrollee does not require services at the LTACH that are not available at the acute care hospital where the 
enrollee is currently receiving care. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve LTACH services.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve continued skilled nursing facility (SNF) care. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says continued SNF coverage beyond November 3, 2022, is not medically reasonable or 
necessary. 
 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 no longer qualifies for SNF coverage after 11/3/22. There were no 
documented skilled nursing or skilled therapy needs. Daily skilled services were not required to establish a 
maintenance program or to prevent deterioration of the enrollees condition. The enrollees care needs could, as 
a practical matter, be provided at a lower level of care. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of SNF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve continued skilled nursing facility (SNF) care.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that that the enrollee 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 the enrollee's needs can be provided safely in other settings. 
 
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 rehabilitation nursing or treatment by multiple 
therapies. Although they have had a functional decline from their baseline level of function and would benefit 
from occupational and physical therapy, they do not require the intensity of therapies provided in acute 
inpatient rehabilitation. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services.