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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a group 3 power wheelchair (PWC) (K0861) and 
accessories. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a group 3 PWC and accessories. You say that the items are medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says Medicare does not cover durable medical equipment 
(DME) in a skilled nursing facility (SNF) based on statutory definition of DME. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that for equipment to be covered, it must be appropriate 
and needed for use inside the home. Medicare does not consider a SNF or a hospital to be a home.  
 
Records show that a group 3 PWC and accessories is being requested for use in a SNF or hospital. Therefore, 
we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a group 3 power wheelchair (PWC) (K0861) and 
accessories.
Appeal type: Other
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Ongentys. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Ongentys. You say that you disagree with the Plan's denial. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the requested drug is not a covered benefit. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare Part B generally does not pay for self-
administered drugs. The self-administered drugs requested here are not among the types which are covered by 
Medicare Part B. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Ongentys.  
 
Benefits for Ongentys may be available under Medicare Part D. Contact the Plan that administers Part D 
benefits for further information concerning any benefits and appeal rights.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve SNF care. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that SNF care is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says that the admission to a SNF 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 considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found that the clinical documentation shows that the enrollee has had functional and clinical 
status change thus would require skilled therapy and nursing. The enrollees evaluating therapists recommend 
ongoing skilled therapy in SNF. The enrollee still requires one-two person physical assistance with mobility 
and activities of daily living thus daily skilled services on an inpatient basis in a SNF is 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 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 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: 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 needs IRF care. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says criteria for admission to the IRF setting have not been met. The enrollee's ongoing 
skilled therapy and nursing needs can be provided at a lower 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 is medically stable and does not need a physical medicine and rehabilitation physician's supervision three times a week in an IRF. There are no acute rehabilitation nursing 
needs identified or documented. At the current functional level, the enrollee does not need intensive therapies 
consisting of at least three hours of therapy per day at least five days per week with multidisciplinary approach 
in an IRF. The documentation does not support necessity for admission to an IRF due to lack on medical or 
rehab complexity with no acute rehabilitation nursing needs. While the enrollee may benefit from physical 
therapy and occupational therapy, the enrollee's rehabilitation needs can be provided in a lower intensity and 
alternate 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 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 power seat elevation system (E2300). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a power seat elevation system. You say that the item is medically necessary. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this item does not primarily serve a medical purpose. 
 
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 power seat elevation system (E2300).
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for the short-latency somatosensory evoked potential study (95938), and 
central motor evoked potential study (95939) provided on July 6, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the physician services. You say that the services should be paid. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says that the services are not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that if there are no specific coverage rules for an item 
or service, then that item or service will be covered when it is 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 pay for the physician services. Our reviewer says 
that the physician services are considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found the services in this case are considered the standard of care. Therefore, the reviewer found that 
the services were 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 physician services have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to 
pay for the short-latency somatosensory evoked potential study (95938), and central motor evoked potential 
study (95939) provided on July 6, 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 IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the IRF admission is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says you do not meet the guidelines for IRF services. 
 
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 medical and rehabilitation needs do not require the intensive 
interdisciplinary approach provided on acute inpatient rehabilitation. You have had a decline from your 
baseline level of function and would likely benefit from therapy, but you do not require the intensity of 
therapies provided on 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.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a home ventilator (E0466). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a home ventilator. You say that the enrollee needs the therapy. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the requested ventilator does not meet the requirements for approval. The 
records show that the standard written order from your provider is for airway pressure settings (AVAPS) that 
can be delivered with a BiPAP. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that ventilators may be covered when they are medically 
necessary for patients who have neuromuscular disease, thoracic restrictive diseases, and chronic respiratory 
failure due to COPD. 
 
 
 
 
 
 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 home ventilator. Our reviewer says 
that the service is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has a diagnosis of 
chronic respiratory failure consequent to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Provided records document 
that the home ventilator is being requested for use in average volume assured pressure support (AVAPS) mode 
with auto-titration (AE) which could be provided by a BiPAP device with AVAPS and a back-up rate. As 
stated in the Local Coverage Determination (L33800): Claims for ventilators used to provide CPAP or bi-level 
CPAP therapy for conditions described in this RAD policy will be denied as not reasonable and 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 home ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a home ventilator (E0466).
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. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says occupational and 
physical therapy would be difficult for the you, there is no documented medical instability requiring visit by 
physician 3 times weekly. 
 
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 continue to have a need for skilled therapy with ongoing safety concerns and a potential for functional improvement however, the documentation doesnt support that you would meet criteria 
for admission to an acute inpatient rehabilitation 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 inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve home health services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve home health services. You say that the enrollee needs the services. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the services are not medically necessary. 
  The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that home health care services may be covered if it is 
medically necessary for the enrollee to receive skilled nursing or therapy. A doctor must certify the need for 
home health care services. 
 
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 home health services. Our reviewer 
says that the services are not medically reasonable and necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the 
clinical documentation shows that the enrollee is home bound but no specific information regarding functional 
impairments or need for home health aide services have been specified thus 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 home health services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve home health services.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Oxycontin. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Oxycontin. You say that the enrollee is experiencing severe pain. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the requested drug is considered self-administered. The Plan says self-
administered drugs are covered under a Medicare Part D prescription drug plan. The Plan also says the 
requested drug is not covered under Medicare Part B. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare Part B generally does not pay for self-
administered drugs. The self-administered drugs requested here are not among the types which are covered by 
Medicare Part B. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Oxycontin.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Group 2 power wheelchair and accessories coded as 
K0823, E1028, E2397 and E0973. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the power wheelchair. You say that the power wheelchair would be used for 
community ambulation to allow you to go to the pharmacy, shopping and grocery store as you no longer drive 
a car. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee is a functional ambulator and does not meet the 
Medicare criteria. 
 
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.  
 
The file shows that you do not have a mobility deficit that impairs your participation in MRADLs, and your 
condition can be improved by a walker, cane or manual wheelchair. This means that Medicare rules for 
coverage of a PMD have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the 
Group 2 power wheelchair and accessories coded as K0823, E1028, E2397 and E0973.
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 you need IRF services in order to be fitted for a 
prosthetic leg. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request 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 your 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 IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the acute inpatient hospital care provided from April 12, 
2022, to June 13, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for acute inpatient hospital care. You say that this claim has been underpaid. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says an order for the enrollee to discharge to custodial care was written by 
the physician on April 11, 2022. The Plan also says that these services were not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that inpatient hospital care is covered when the doctor 
expects the patient to need hospital care that crosses at least two midnights. In rare and unusual cases, 
consideration may be given to inpatient hospital care when the hospital stay does not cross two midnights or 
more.   
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 acute inpatient hospital care. Our reviewer 
says that the documentation does not support that the criteria for inpatient payment are met in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee presented with suicidal ideation and suicidal attempts. Workup was 
essentially unremarkable except for possible evidence for urinary tract infection (UTI) or pneumonia, afebrile, 
vitals were stable, and the enrollee was agitated and received Versed. Our reviewer found that by April 11, 
2022, the UTI was resolved, psychosis was resolved, and the enrollee was stable. An order for the enrollee to 
discharge to custodial care was written by the physician on April 11, 2022. Our physician reviewer also found 
that following April 11, 2022, the records do not suggest the enrollee would need additional hospital services 
that would likely require two or more additional midnights. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of acute inpatient hospital care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pay for the acute inpatient hospital care provided from April 12, 2022, to June 13, 2022.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a ventilator. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a ventilator. You say that the services are necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says based on the documentation provided, coverage criteria has not been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that ventilators may be covered when they are medically 
necessary for patients who have neuromuscular disease, thoracic restrictive diseases, and chronic respiratory 
failure due to COPD. 
 
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 ventilator. Our reviewer says that the 
services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the record indicates that the enrollee has 
chronic respiratory failure from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The provided primary source 
documentation does not contain sufficient detailed information in the medical record to justify the treatment 
selected. The enrollee could be treated with a bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) machine with average 
volume-assured pressure support (AVAPS) capability. The plan has indicated coverage for such a device is available upon request. The elements of the coverage criteria are not satisfied. The requested service cannot be 
recommended. 
 
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 ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a ventilator.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve buprenorphine-naloxone. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve these services. You say that you disagree with the denial. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says self-administered drugs are not covered. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare Part B generally does not pay for self-
administered drugs. The self-administered drugs requested here are not among the types which are covered by 
Medicare Part B. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve buprenorphine-naloxone.  
 
Benefits for these services may be available under Medicare Part D. Contact the Plan that administers Part D 
benefits for further information concerning any benefits and appeal rights.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) and related supplies 
provided on March 21, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for a CGM and related supplies. You say that the items at issue were a medical 
necessity for the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says rules for payment for DMEPOS have 
not been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules state that DMEPOS is covered only when there are both a 
physician order and proof of delivery.  
 
The record does not contain a valid proof of delivery for the supplies provided in this case. The record shows that the Plan made several attempts to obtain the necessary documentation without success. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a CGM and related supplies provided on March 21, 2022.