Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for the electrical stimulator supplies provided on September 27, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the supplies. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the proof of 
delivery did not include an order number or details to corroborate the delivery ticket submitted. Of note, the 
proof of delivery is not itemized to indicate the specific supplies. 
 
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. The Plan argues that the proof of delivery did not include an order number or 
details to corroborate the delivery ticket submitted, and the proof of delivery is not itemized to indicate the 
specific supplies. However, the submitted documentation does contain an itemized packing slip dated 
September 27, 2022, with the same tracking number as the delivery ticket dated September 29, 2022. As the 
documentation supports that the items in question were delivered, the Plan's denial cannot be substantiated. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for the electrical stimulator supplies provided on September 27, 
2022.  
 
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 inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the member will greatly benefit from an inpatient 
rehabilitation admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the IRF services requested 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 enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either 
physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While the medical 
record supports a need for physical or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive 
rehabilitation services. There is not a reasonable expectation that this enrollee will be able to fully participate in 
and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF. 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 inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a shower chair (E0240). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a shower chair. You say that you need this item. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says this item is not covered by Medicare. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that shower chairs are not covered because they are 
not primarily medical in nature.  
 
While a shower chair may be appropriate in this case, neither the Plan nor Medicare offers coverage of this 
item. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a shower chair (E0240).
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the requested admission to an IRF is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested admission to an IRF is not medically 
necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
   
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found you are deconditioned following acute illness. You do not require and cannot tolerate 
intensive rehabilitation. You do not require frequent physiatry oversight or around the clock rehabilitation 
nursing. 
 
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 pre-approve an automatic blood pressure monitor (A4670). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve an automatic blood pressure monitor. You say that your provider advised 
this was necessary since you have white coat syndrome. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says items for 
comfort or convenience are not covered by Medicare or the Plan. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that for equipment to be covered, it must primarily serve a 
medical purpose.   
 
The item at issue in this appeal does not serve a purpose that is primarily medical in nature. This item is 
available to the general public and would be helpful even to those who are not sick or injured. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an automatic blood pressure monitor (A4670).
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a continuation of SNF care. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that you are appealing the denial. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the request is not medically 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 you do not have skilled nursing needs that require the specialized skill, 
knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional nurse. You do have skilled therapy needs that require the 
specialized skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional therapist. You do not require daily skilled 
nursing and/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 a continuation of SNF care.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Leqvio. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Leqvio. You say that this drug is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says a trial of Zetia and Praluent is required before alternatives can be considered. 
 
Medicare covers Part B medications when they are reasonable and necessary but allows health plans to 
implement step therapy criteria. The Plan's contract indicates that it has implemented such criteria for certain Part B medications. 
 
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 Leqvio. Our reviewer says that Leqvio 
is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the record shows that while the enrollee was unable 
to tolerate Zetia, there was no trial of Praluent. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Leqvio have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pre-approve Leqvio.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the SSBCI benefits. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the SSBCI benefits. You say that you believe you are eligible for the SSBCI 
benefits. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you do not meet the criteria to be eligible for SSBCI 
benefits. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that for Medicare to consider coverage and payment 
for any item or service, the information submitted by the supplier or provider must corroborate the 
documentation in the beneficiary's medical documentation and confirm that Medicare coverage criteria have 
been met. We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The Plan requested medical records from your provider but did not 
receive any, and without medical records we cannot determine whether you meet the criteria for the SSBCI 
benefits. Based on this information, we decided that there is insufficient information in the record to determine 
if Medicare rules for coverage of the SSBCI benefits have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve the SSBCI benefits.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for inpatient hospital care provided from August 22, 2022, to August 26, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the inpatient care. You say that the services were authorized by the Plan. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says that unauthorized, out-of-network care is not covered. 
 
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, an inpatient authorization was approved by the Plan and they have 
not provided evidence to support a denial of service. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for 
inpatient hospital care provided from August 22, 2022, to August 26, 2022.  
 
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 inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that an IRF is medically necessary to continue therapy to 
address functionality deficits. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an IRF admission is not medically 
reasonable or 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 does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either 
physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While the medical 
record supports a need for physical or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive 
rehabilitation services. There is not a reasonable expectation that this enrollee will be able to fully participate in 
and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF. 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 inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve computed tomography (CT), of the abdomen; without 
contrast material, followed by contrast material(s) and further sections (74170). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve this service. You say that the requested service is medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested service is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that CT scans are covered only when they are 
medically 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 this service. Our reviewer says that the 
requested service is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that you had a twenty two pound 
weight loss over the last year. Your laboratory values are normal. The physical exam provided was normal. An 
ultrasound of the abdomen has not been obtained. The medical necessity of the requested service has not been 
established in the records provided. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of this service have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve computed tomography (CT), of the abdomen; without contrast material, followed by 
contrast material(s) and further sections (74170).
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health services provided from January 4, 2022, to 
May 3, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the home health services as billed. You say that the services at issue have been 
billed correctly. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the claims have 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 claims 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 claims at issue have not been met. Therefore, 
we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health services provided from January 4, 2022, to 
May 3, 2022.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Group 3 power wheelchair (K0856) and accessories. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a power wheelchair and accessories. You say that the requested PWC and 
accessories are medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the requested items are 
not medically necessary. 
 The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that a PMD will not be covered if the patient does not 
have mobility deficit that impairs their participation in MRADLs, the patients condition can be ameliorated by 
a walker, cane or manual wheelchair, or the patient is not capable of safely operating the requested PMD.  
 
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 power wheelchair and accessories. 
Our reviewer says that the coverage criteria has not been met. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee lives 
in an assisted living facility. The enrollee is not at high risk for skin breakdown, does not use a catheter, and 
does not have tremors or spasticity. The enrollee can ambulate with aide support. 
 
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 power wheelchair and accessories have not been met. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Group 3 power wheelchair (K0856) and accessories.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve special supplemental benefit for the chronically ill 
(SSBCI) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the SSBCI services. You say that the records provided support the need for 
SSBCI care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there is no documentation that the enrollee meets the 
criteria for coverage. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that there is a special supplemental benefit for 
enrollees with an eligible chronic condition.  
 
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 SSBCI services. Our reviewer says that 
the criteria for coverage have not been met. Our physician reviewer found the provided documentation did not 
sufficiently support medical necessity. Although the enrollee has many chronic, stable conditions being 
managed appropriately by the treating physician, the enrollee does not have an active diagnosis for one or more 
qualifying comorbid and medically complex conditions. The enrollees conditions are not life-threatening or 
significantly limiting the overall health or function of the enrollee. The enrollee does not require intensive care 
management and is not at a high risk for hospitalization based on the provided documentation.   
We looked at this physicians review, the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the SSBCI services have not been met. Specifically, we have confirmed that 
you do not have one of the eligible conditions listed in the Evidence of Coverage. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pre-approve special supplemental benefit for the chronically ill (SSBCI) services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a head and leg wedge pillow (E0190). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a head and leg wedge pillow. You say that the item is medically necessary. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this is not a covered item. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that for equipment to be covered, it must primarily serve a 
medical purpose.   
 
The item at issue in this appeal does not serve a purpose that is primarily medical in nature. This item is 
available to the general public and would be helpful even to those who are not sick or injured. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a head and leg wedge pillow (E0190).
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a complete upper denture (D5110) and a complete lower 
denture (D5120). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve these items. You say that you are requesting a reconsideration of the Plan's 
denial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested items are not covered under the contractual 
policy. 
 
Medicare generally does not cover dental services. However, the Plan offers a dental benefit that exceeds 
Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plans coverage rules apply in this case. 
 
Though the Plan offers a dental benefit in excess of Medicare coverage, the requested items are not among 
those covered under this benefit. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a complete 
upper denture (D5110) and a complete lower denture (D5120).
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Euflexxa. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Euflexxa. You say that Euflexxa is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says a trial of Synvisc or Orthovisc is required before alternatives can be considered. 
 
Medicare covers Part B medications when they are reasonable and necessary but allows health plans to 
implement step therapy criteria. The Plan's contract indicates that it has implemented such criteria for certain 
Part B medications.  
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 Euflexxa. Our reviewer says that 
Euflexxa is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the record does not show a trial of the plan 
preferred drugs, or any reason they would be unsafe or ineffective. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Euflexxa have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Euflexxa.