Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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 patient meets IRF criteria. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the patient's condition does not meet Medicare criteria for IRF admission. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of the patient's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The patient's 
medical status does not require intensive physician and nursing oversight in an IRF. While the patient may 
benefit from additional multiple therapies, including physical and occupational therapy, the documentation 
does not reveal that the patient requires this therapy on an intensive IRF level. 
 
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: 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 the requested admission to a LTACH is 
medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested admission to a LTACH does 
not meet criteria. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that LTACH services are covered if they are medically 
necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the LTACH services. Our reviewer says 
that the requested LTACH care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee was admitted with acute respiratory failure in the setting of pneumonia. 
The record indicates that the enrollee has ongoing acute medical issues and still requires acute care services 
before transitioning to a lower level of care. The enrollee continues to receive acute care services, and these 
have not been denied. The medical record does not indicate that the enrollee requires services that she is not 
currently receiving but that would be available at the LTACH facility. The elements of the coverage rules 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 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the psychiatry visit provided on October 27, 2021, by an out-
of-network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the OON psychiatry visit. You say that this visit was needed for evaluation and 
prescriptions of the medications needed for your illness. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 
unauthorized, out-of-network care is not covered. 
 
Medicare rules say that plans can require enrollees to get care from network providers. The contract with the 
Plan says that the Plan has to pay for care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving emergencies, 
out of area urgent care and pre-approved care. 
 
The provider in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan did not pre-approve the item/service 
at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay for these items/services. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the psychiatry visit provided on October 27, 2021, by an out-of-
network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a myoelectric prosthetic arm with hand feature, electric 
switch, and extended warranty (L6955, L7499, L7403, L6629, L6680, L6687, L7400, L6890, L6621). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve prosthetics. You say that the requested items are medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request for upper limb myoelectric prosthesis with independently 
articulating digits does not meet Medicare criteria as reasonable and necessary. Codes used to request this 
prosthesis do not match the items requested. 
 
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 prosthetics. Our reviewer says that the 
requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found your current body powered prosthesis has been effective but no longer fits and needs 
replacement. A myoelectric prosthesis is not medically necessary. The requested prosthesis exceeds your 
needs. 
 
 We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of prosthetics have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a myoelectric prosthetic arm with hand feature, electric switch, and extended warranty 
(L6955, L7499, L7403, L6629, L6680, L6687, L7400, L6890, L6621).
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve interlaminar lumbar instrumented fusion with spacer. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve interlaminar lumbar instrumented fusion with spacer. You say that you have 
tied injections and medication and they don't work on the pain.  You said that you are about to get on disability 
because you are in so much pain. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested procedure is not 
medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that items and services that are not medically 
necessary are not covered.  
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve interlaminar lumbar instrumented 
fusion with spacer. Our reviewer says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable 
and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found this procedure does not have long term proven 
efficacy as compared to standard therapy.  Therefore, it is not medically reasonable. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of interlaminar lumbar instrumented fusion with spacer have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve interlaminar lumbar instrumented fusion with 
spacer.
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 the requested admission to a LTACH is 
medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested admission to a LTACH does 
not meet criteria. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that LTACH services are covered if they are medically 
necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the LTACH services. Our reviewer says 
that the requested LTACH care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee was admitted following the dislodgement of a nephrostomy tube placed 
for urinary drainage. The record indicates that the enrollee is improving but still require acute care services 
before transitioning to a lower level of care. The enrollee continues to receive acute care services, and these 
have not been denied. The medical record does not indicate that the enrollee requires services that she is not 
currently receiving but that would be available at the LTACH facility. The elements of the coverage rules 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 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a wound repair visit and medical supplies provided on 
February 8, 2022, by an out-of-network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for a wound repair visit and medical supplies. You say that this should be covered. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there was no preauthorization by a primary care provider (this is 
different than a referral) for an out-of-network (OON) provider or facility, and this was not an emergency. 
Therefore, the decision is upheld. 
 
Medicare rules say that plans can require enrollees to get care from network providers. The contract with the 
Plan says that the Plan has to pay for care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving emergencies, 
out of area urgent care and pre-approved care. The requested provider in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan had network providers 
available who could have provided the items/services at issue in this appeal. The Plan did not pre-approve the 
item/service at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay for these items/services. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a wound repair visit and medical supplies 
provided on February 8, 2022, by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for drug testing services (procedure codes 80307, 83789, 
G0480) provided to the enrollee on May 24, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. You say that this was not processed at the full amount. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the service is redundant, and has been performed by the same and/or 
different provider on the same date of service. 
 
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 the denied codes is: 
 
CPT 80307: 
 
Drug test(s), presumptive, any number of drug classes, any number of devices or procedures; by instrument 
chemistry analyzers (eg, utilizing immunoassay [eg, EIA, ELISA, EMIT, FPIA, IA, KIMS, RIA]), 
chromatography (eg, GC, HPLC), and mass spectrometry either with or without chromatography, (eg, DART, 
DESI, GC-MS, GC-MS/MS, LC-MS, LC-MS/MS, LDTD, MALDI, TOF) includes sample validation when 
performed, per date of service 
 
CPT 83789: 
 
Mass spectrometry and tandem mass spectrometry (eg, MS, MS/MS, MALDI, MS-TOF, QTOF), non-drug 
analyte(s) not elsewhere specified, qualitative or quantitative, each specimen 
 
HCPCS G0480: 
 
Drug test(s), definitive, utilizing (1) drug identification methods able to identify individual drugs and 
distinguish between structural isomers (but not necessarily stereoisomers), including, but not limited to gc/ms 
(any type, single or tandem) and lc/ms (any type, single or tandem and excluding immunoassays (e.g., ia, eia, 
elisa, emit, fpia) and enzymatic methods (e.g., alcohol dehydrogenase)), (2) stable isotope or other universally 
recognized internal standards in all samples (e.g., to control for matrix effects, interferences and variations in 
signal strength), and (3) method or drug-specific calibration and matrix-matched quality control material (e.g., 
to control for instrument variations and mass spectral drift); qualitative or quantitative, all sources, includes 
specimen validity testing, per day; 1-7 drug class(es), including metabolite(s) if performed 
 
We asked our coder to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to determine if the 
Plan was correct in denying the request to pay for the services. Our reviewer says that the services at issue in 
this case were not supported by the medical records. Our reviewer found that per the provider, these services 
have already been paid on claim number 820221540007510. 
 
We looked at this coder's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pay for drug testing services (procedure codes 80307, 83789, G0480) provided to the enrollee on May 
24, 2022.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Reblozyl. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Reblozyl. You say that this drug is medically necessary for your condition. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the accepted use of this drug for your condition requires a 
diagnosis of myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative disease with ring sideroblasts and thrombocytosis or a 
diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndromThe Plan also says that the requested drug is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare may pay for unlabeled uses for anti-cancer 
drugs if they are medically accepted as safe and effective or appropriate for the particular use.  
 
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 Reblozyl. Our reviewer says that this 
drug is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the requested use of Reblozyl is not FDA-
approved for your diagnosis and its use is not supported in any Medicare-approved journal or compendia for 
your condition. 
 
 We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Reblozyl have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Reblozyl.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve home health physical therapy services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the services. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the records do not support the need for the requested number of visits. 
 
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 the services. Our reviewer says that the 
services at issue in this case were not supported by the medical records. Our physician reviewer found that in 
this case, the documentation doesnt support that you require additional skilled rehab services to provide 
treatment that is medically necessary. You do not require additional skilled rehab services to effectively 
provide treatment, care, and/or services in order to improve your condition, perform a maintenance program to 
maintain your condition and/or prevent deterioration. You have been medically stable without any recent 
exacerbations of chronic medical problems or hospitalizations. The requested home health services are 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 services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve home health physical therapy services.
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 the enrollee needs more rehabilitation than she has 
received, and now is more vulnerable to other illnesses that could be fatal. 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 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 functioning at a home care level for rehabilitation, but the family 
cannot provide support according to her chart. The enrollee does not require intensive rehabilitation or frequent oversight from a physiatrist. 
 
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 pre-approve acute IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says according to the 
information reviewed on appeal, the requested service 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 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. The enrollee 
was admitted for surgical management of a tib-fib fracture after a fall. Medical problems are stable.  There are no complex or nursing rehabilitation needs. While the enrollee has a need for physical or 
occupational therapy, there is no documentation of a need for an intensive rehabilitation program. 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Humira Pen Kit. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Humira Pen Kit. You say that the medication is necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the enrollee's plan does not have a Medicare Part D benefit, or a separate pharmacy 
benefit managed by the plan, therefore self-administered drugs do not meet the criteria for coverage. 
 
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 Humira Pen Kit.  
 Benefits for Humira Pen Kit 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the CardioMEMS device. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the CardioMEMS device. You say that this device is medically necessary. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this device has been determined to be of uncertain value in the 
most recent American Heart Association guidelines and carries a risk of significant complications.  As a result, 
it is not considered reasonable and necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that items and services that are not medically 
necessary are not covered.  
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the CardioMEMS device. Our reviewer 
says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found The CardioMEMS device was approved by the Food and Drug Administration 
(FDA) in 2014 and consists of a sensor device placed in the pulmonary artery to allow measurement of 
pulmonary artery pressure in the management of patients with congestive heart failure. The clinical study on 
which FDA approval was based showed improved clinical outcomes and decreased hospitalizations in patients 
in whom the CardioMEMS system was implanted, reflecting a patient population with preserved ejection 
fraction and was somewhat limited in scope. Subsequent follow-up studies remain encouraging and suggest an improvement in heart failure symptoms with the use of the device. In addition, published expert opinion in the 
cardiology literature is supportive of the clinical usefulness of CardioMEMS.  Nonetheless, there remains a 
dearth of randomized, blinded clinical studies examining long-term clinical outcomes establishing the value of 
CardioMEMS in patient management. As a result, at this time the CardioMEMS system would not be 
considered medically appropriate and necessary in this patients clinical management. 
 
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 CardioMEMS device have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve the CardioMEMS device.