Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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 the enrollee had a stroke, and it is affecting their 
right side and are unable to use their leg or arm on that side. You say that the enrollee cannot do anything by 
themselves like walking with a walker and doing basic daily activities even after a number of days of therapy. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that an SNF admission is not medically necessary, and the 
enrollee's needs may be met at a lower level of care. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for care in a SNF when the four factors 
listed in the Medicare rules section are met. Custodial care is not covered. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve SNF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested SNF care is considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found that it shows that the enrollee has new complex functional impairments and clinical 
assessment needs. Evaluating therapists recommend daily skilled therapy and the enrollee would be expected to 
require daily skilled services on an inpatient basis in 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 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 skilled nursing 
facility (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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 99072 billed for date of service November 
17, 2021. 
  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 99072. You say that this service was medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says procedure code 99072 is considered bundled and not separately 
payable. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate procedure code. 
 
We find that procedure code 99072 has a status indicator of B on the Physician Fee Schedule. This means that 
procedure code 99072 is not separately payable. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of procedure code 99072 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay 
for procedure code 99072 billed for date of service November 17, 2021.
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 LTACH services are medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the coverage criteria has not been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that LTACH services are covered if they are medically 
necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the LTACH services. Our reviewer says 
that the requested LTACH care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found that the enrollee appears to be improving and more stable and should only require 
short-term additional acute care services that can safely be provided at the current facility until more 
appropriate for a lower level of care. The enrollee does not require services at the LTACH that are not already 
available at the current 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 the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve LTACH services.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve radiofrequency ablation of the sacroiliac joint (64625). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the radiofrequency ablation of the sacroiliac joint. You say that this 
procedure is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this service is experimental and 
non-covered. 
 
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 radiofrequency ablation of the 
sacroiliac joint. Our reviewer says that the requested services are not considered medically reasonable and 
necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found studies completed say that this procedure does not 
improve outcomes compared to standard treatment. Radiofrequency ablation for denervation, whether 
performed using traditional, cooled, or pulsed radiofrequency, is considered investigational and therefore, 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 radiofrequency ablation of the sacroiliac joint have not been met. Therefore, 
we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve radiofrequency ablation of the sacroiliac joint (64625).
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Farxiga. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Farxiga. You say that this is necessary for the enrollee's condition. 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 Farxiga.  
 Benefits for Farxiga 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 pre-approve the crutch substitute, lower leg platform, with or 
without wheels, each (E0118). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the knee scooter. You say that you will be having surgery on your right foot 
and lives alone and do not want to be in a wheelchair. Your doctor recommended a knee scooter due to not 
being able to walk on that foot for about 6 to 8 weeks. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this item 
does not primarily serve a medical purpose and is not covered under any condition. 
 
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 the crutch substitute, lower leg platform, with or without 
wheels, each (E0118).
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 this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the request is not medically necessary, the services the enrollee needs can be provided 
safely in other settings, for example, a skilled nursing facility. 
 
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 enrollees medical problems are stable and there are no complex nursing or 
rehabilitation needs. There is no documented need for intensive rehabilitation services and medically necessary care can be provided in a different level of care. 
 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: 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 you would benefit from inpatient rehabilitation 
services due to your medical complexity. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you do not meet the 
Medicare criteria for admission to an IRF. You can safely receive the services you need, in other settings for 
example: a skilled nursing facility or a residential long term care facility, home with home health services, or 
home with outpatient therapy. 
 
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 there are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. While you have a need for 
physical or occupational therapy, there is no documentation of a need for an intensive rehabilitation program. 
 
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 positioning pillow (E1390). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the positioning pillow. You say that the positioning wedge is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this item is non-covered. 
 
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 positioning pillow (E1390).
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 are alone with no leg and need rehab to regain 
mobility to live on your own. 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 medical problems are stable and there are no complex nursing or 
rehabilitation needs. While the medical record supports a need for physical or occupational therapy, there is no 
documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different 
level of care. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: 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 have fallen and need rehab. you cannot function 
and mobility is impossible without assistance. You are in daily dialysis, and it has to be done in a facility and 
transport would be difficult. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says criteria for admission to the Acute 
Inpatient Rehabilitation setting have not been met. Your ongoing skilled therapy and nursing needs can be 
provided at a lower level of care such as at a Skilled Nursing Facility. 
 
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 your medical problems are stable and there are no complex nursing or rehabilitation 
needs. There is no documented need for intensive rehabilitation services and medically necessary care can be 
provided in a different level of care. 
 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: 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 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 enrollees medical problems are stable and there are no complex nursing or 
rehabilitation needs. While the medical record supports a need for physical or occupational therapy, there is no 
documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different 
level of care. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a MyoPro powered arm brace (L8702). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a MyoPro powered arm brace. You say that the device is medically 
necessary for the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says experimental and investigational 
procedures are not covered by Medicare. 
 
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 MyoPro powered arm brace. Our 
reviewer says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this 
case. Our physician reviewer found the requested device is used for the upper extremity. It is an arm brace that 
is motorized and can help an individual with upper extremity weakness to move their arm and hand. The 
requested device has not been shown to be superior to other standard treatments for the medical condition. The 
studies do not indicate the MyoPro brace improves an individuals function or general health. The requested 
device 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 a MyoPro powered arm brace have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve a MyoPro powered arm brace (L8702).
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Stryker Vitoss BA Bimodal allograft and bone marrow 
aspirate. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Stryker Vitoss BA Bimodal allograft and bone marrow aspirate. 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 Stryker Vitoss BA Bimodal allograft 
and bone marrow aspirate. Our reviewer says that the requested items/services are not considered medically 
reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found there is no specific indication provided to 
support the request for bone marrow aspirate for the approved surgery. There is a lack of large-volume, long-
term peer-reviewed outcome studies to support the use of bone marrow aspirate for this enrollees medical 
condition as discussed above. Further studies are needed to demonstrate this request has beneficial outcomes 
compared with conventional treatment. There is no compelling rationale presented or extenuating 
circumstances noted to support the medical necessity of this request as an exception. Therefore, the requested 
Stryker Vitoss BA bimodal allograft and bone marrow aspirate in this case, is not medically reasonable or 
necessary.  
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Stryker Vitoss BA Bimodal allograft and bone marrow aspirate have not been 
met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Stryker Vitoss BA Bimodal allograft and 
bone marrow aspirate.
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 is stable and is ready to 
transfer to LTACH level of care and no longer needs acute care hospital level of care. You say that the 
enrollee's ability to regain maximum function could be seriously jeopardized by applying the standard time 
frame in processing this request. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an LTACH admission is not 
medically necessary, and the enrollee care can be provided in the current inpatient hospital. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that LTACH services are covered if they are medically 
necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the LTACH services. Our reviewer says 
that the requested LTACH care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found that the enrollee is more stable and should only require short-term additional acute 
care services that can safely be administered at the current facility. The enrollee does not require services at the 
LTACH that are not already available at the current 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 the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve LTACH services.