Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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 these services are medically necessary. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that your records do not show that you need treatments that can 
only be given in a hospital or that you will require an average 25 day length of stay in an LTACH. 
 
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. You are 
receiving appropriate care at the present acute care hospital. You do not require services at the LTACH that are 
not available at the acute care hospital where you are currently receiving care. There are no services available 
at the LTACH that you require that are not available at the health care setting being offered by the health plan. 
Our physician reviewer found that your condition does not meet Medicare criteria for LTACH services. 
 
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: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the hearing aid you purchased on May 12, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the hearing aid. You say that you have 100% hearing loss in your right ear and 
80% hearing loss in your left ear due to Meniere's disease. You said that you don't understand why the Plan 
will cover hearing exams with this provider but not hearing aids. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 
you did not purchase these hearing aids from the proper vendor. 
 
Medicare does not pay for hearing aids. However, the Plan offers a hearing aid benefit that exceeds Medicare 
coverage. For that reason, the plans coverage rules apply in this case. The Plan pays for hearing aids only 
when purchased from the Plan's designated hearing aid vendor. You did not purchase the hearing aid in 
question from this specific vendor. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the hearing aid 
you purchased on May 12, 2021.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Fentanyl patch. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Fentanyl patch. You say that this drug is medically reasonable and 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this drug is not covered under the enrollee's medical 
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 Fentanyl patch.  
 Benefits for Fentanyl patch 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: 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 IRF care is a medical necessity for you. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says medical necessity rules for IRF care have not been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines.  
 Our physician reviewer found that the complexity of your nursing, medical, and rehabilitation needs does not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. While you have 
a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documentation of a need for an intensive 
rehabilitation program. There is not a reasonable expectation that you will be able to fully participate in and 
benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve urology oncology services to be provided by an out-of-
network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the OON urology oncology services. You say that you have prostate cancer 
and need to see this doctor by Monday for an appointment. You say that this is about your life. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the requested OON provider is not uniquely qualified to treat the enrollee's prostate 
cancer. The Plan says that there are urology oncology providers within the network who can meet the enrollee's 
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 
urology oncology services to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the critical care services provided from March 29, 2021, to 
March 31, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services provided. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the billed 
code cannot be verified. 
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate CPT code. 
 
In this case, the CPT Code Manual definition of code 99291 is critical care, evaluation and management of the 
critically ill or critically injured patient; first 30-74 minutes. We find that CPT code 99291 is not supported in 
the medical record. The records provided do not show the amount of time spent on each date of service at issue. 
Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the services provided have not been 
met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the critical care services provided from 
March 29, 2021, to March 31, 2021.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the wrist hand orthosis (L3916) provided December 8, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the orthosis. You say that the medical records provided support the necessity of 
the services in dispute. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there is evidence of misrepresented 
services. 
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that for eligible telehealth services, 
telecommunications systems substitute for an in-person encounter. Medicare enrollees are eligible for 
telehealth services only if they are presented from an authorized originating site located in either a county 
outside of a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) or a rural Health Professional Shortage Area (HPSA) located 
in a rural census tract. 
  
There is no evidence of an established relationship between the enrollee and the ordering physician, there was 
no claims submitted for an evaluation and management service and there is no evidence of a prior telehealth 
service with the ordering physician as required per CMS guidelines. A review of the file does not show that the 
telehealth service was provided in an authorized originating site. This means that the telehealth visit is not a 
covered service under the Medicare program and cannot substitute for an in-person encounter. Consequently, 
the items/services ordered following the noncovered visit are likewise noncovered. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pay for the wrist hand orthosis (L3916) provided December 8, 2021.
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 IRF care is a medical necessity for the enrollee. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says medical necessity rules for IRF care have not been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found that the complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical, and rehabilitation needs does 
not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care.  While the enrollee has a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documentation of a need for 
an intensive rehabilitation program. There is not a reasonable expectation that the enrollee will be able to fully 
participate in and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the continuation of skilled nursing facility (SNF) 
services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the continuation of SNF care. You say that SNF care remains medically 
reasonable and necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says rules for SNF care have not been met. 
 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 the continuation of SNF care. Our 
reviewer says that daily skilled services are not necessary. Our physician reviewer found based on the medical 
records provided there is no documentation that you require skilled nursing services, i.e., the specialized skill, 
knowledge and judgment of a skilled professional nurse are not required to safely and effectively provide 
medically necessary and reasonable treatment. Records do not document the need for intravenous medications, 
new tube feeding or ostomy care or daily complex wound care. While you do require skilled therapy services, 
these services are not required on a daily basis. Based on the medical records provided there is no 
documentation that daily skilled services are required. Despite almost four weeks of daily skilled therapy his 
functional level is very limited with no indication that significant recovery is likely in a reasonable and 
predictable timeframe. Part time therapy now appears indicated. 
 
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 continuation of SNF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve the continuation of skilled nursing facility (SNF) services.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care to be provided by an 
out-of-network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that the requested SNF care is a necessity for your care. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says rules for coverage for out-of-network care have not been met. 
 
Medicare rules say that plans can require enrollees to get care from network providers. The contract with the 
Plan says that the Plan has to pre-approve care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving 
emergencies, out of area urgent care and care that cannot be provided by network providers. 
 
The requested provider in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan has network providers 
available who can provide the items/services at issue in this appeal. We found no exception that would require 
the Plan to pre-approve these items/services. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve 
skilled nursing facility (SNF) care to be provided 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 IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the stay is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the stay is not medically necessary based on IRF criteria. 
 
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 health plans denial should be upheld. The enrollee does not require the intensity 
of services provided at an IRF. Specifically, the enrollee is not shown to require fifteen (15) 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a portable ventilator for the enrollee. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the ventilator. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the plan would approve an E0471 upon request. 
 
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 the ventilator. Our reviewer says that 
the requested ventilator is not medically reasonable or necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee 
has obesity-hypoventilation syndrome with HFpEF and possible aspiration pneumonia. There is chronic 
obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or thoracic restrictive disease; therefore, the enrollee does not have a 
diagnosis for which Medicare covers a ventilator. Bilateral positive airway pressure (BiPAP) during sleep is the appropriate treatment, which can provide the average volume-assured pressure support (AVAPS) more of 
support if 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 the ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a portable ventilator for the enrollee.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the laboratory services rendered on November 1, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for these services. You say that you disagree with the denial. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the services are not covered. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that testing to confirm that a urine specimen is 
unadulterated is an internal control process that is not separately reportable. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The file shows that the tests at issue were urine specimens utilized for 
drug testing. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the laboratory services rendered on 
November 1, 2021.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the genetic testing provided on September 15, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the testing. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services were billed 
incorrectly. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that if one laboratory procedure evaluates multiple 
genes using a next generation sequencing procedure, the laboratory shall report only one unit of service of one 
genomic sequencing procedure, molecular multianalyte assay, ultianalyte assay with algorithmic analysis, or 
proprietary laboratory analysis CPT code.  
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. In this case, the requested genetic testing was billed with multiple 
codes. Per Medicare rules, the testing should be reported with one unit of one CPT code. Based on this 
information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the testing have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the genetic testing provided on September 15, 2021.
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 stay is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the stay is not medically necessary based on IRF criteria. 
 
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 your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not require an 
acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. You were admitted for. 
sepsis and respiratory failure. Medical problems are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation 
needs. You do not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational 
therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While you have a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documentation of a need for an intensive rehabilitation program. There is not 
a reasonable expectation that you will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation 
therapy program provided in an IRF. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve compression stockings. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve compression stockings. You say that the requested items are a medical 
necessity for the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested items are not a covered 
benefit in the enrollee's clinical situation. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that compression stockings are covered only when 
they are used to treat an open venous stasis ulcer. Medicare rules also say that compression bandages and 
gradient compression wraps are covered only when they are used as dressings over a qualifying wound. 
 
The record does not show that the enrollee has open venous stasis ulcers or a qualifying wound. This means 
that the enrollee does not have a medical condition for which compression stockings can be covered or paid for 
by Medicare. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve compression stockings.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Temazepam. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Temazepam. You say that the chart notes provided support the need for the 
requested drug. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not have pharmacy benefits 
administered under this contract. The Plan says that the enrollee does have ViacomCBS which provides its own 
pharmacy benefits. 
 
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 Temazepam.  
 Benefits for Temazepam may be available under Medicare Part D. Contact the Plan that administers Part D 
benefits for further information concerning any benefits and appeal rights.