Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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 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 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 necessary. Our physician reviewer found you do not have documented 
home health physical therapy needs. You are functioning at a level commiserate with a lower level of care. As 
such, the requested, home health physical therapy services are not medically necessary or 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 home health services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve home health services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an out-of-network referral for a wrist orthosis for the 
enrollee. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the referral. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says there are contracted healthcare professionals available. 
 
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 
an out-of-network referral for a wrist orthosis for the enrollee.
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 medically necessary. 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 complexity of the enrollees nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. Medical 
problems are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. While the documentation does 
support a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for an intensive, multi-
disciplinary 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: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the analysis of saliva sample (D0418) provided by an out-of-
network provider on May 19, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the analysis of saliva sample. You say that you would like the Plan to pay for 
this. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the rendered dental service is not a covered benefit. 
 
Medicare generally does not cover dental services. However, the Plan offers a dental benefit that exceeds 
Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plans coverage rules apply in this case. 
 
Though the Plan offers a dental benefit in excess of Medicare coverage, the requested items or services are not 
among those covered under this benefit. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the 
analysis of saliva sample (D0418) provided by an out-of-network on May 19, 2021.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for lab services provided on March 24, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the lab services. You say that these services were medically necessary and 
should be paid. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you billed with an incorrect place of service on the 
claim. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that lab services, the POS code must reflect the 
location in which the sample was taken. POS code 81 is used to describe samples taken by the laboratory 
directly. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the lab services have not been met. Specifically, this claim was billed with the laboratory POS 
code. The records do not support that the sample was taken in a laboratory setting. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pay for lab services provided on March 24, 2021.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the myocardial perfusion imaging, tomographic (SPECT) 
(78452) provided on December 27, 2021 by an out-of-network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the diagnostic imaging. You say that the service was medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the claim processed correctly. 
 
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 myocardial perfusion imaging, tomographic (SPECT) 
(78452) provided on December 27, 2021 by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for inpatient care provided from July 18, 2021, to July 26, 2021, 
and billed with DRG (diagnosis related group) 224. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for inpatient care. You say that this is supported in the records. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says DRG 224 and secondary diagnosis J96.01 are not supported. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report inpatient hospital services with the appropriate DRG, which is based, in part, on the 
reported principal and secondary diagnosis codes.   
 
In this case, you billed the inpatient services provided with DRG 224, cardiac defibrillator implant with cardiac 
catheterization without Acute Myocardial Infarction, heart failure, or shock with major complications or 
comorbidities, and diagnosis J96.01, Acute respiratory failure with hypoxia. 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 inpatient care. Our reviewer says that the billed DRG is not supported. Our 
physician reviewer found although the provider documented acute hypoxic respiratory failure, reasonable 
support within the health record must be present for that diagnosis.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided the 
medical records do not substantiate the DRG as billed. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay 
for inpatient care provided from July 18, 2021, to July 26, 2021, and billed with DRG (diagnosis related group) 
224.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a commode chair (E0163) and a cane (E0100) to be 
provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a commode chair and a cane. You say that you are requesting 
reconsideration of the denied items. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee must use network 
providers to get medical care and services. The only exceptions are emergencies, urgently needed services 
when the network is not available, out-of-area dialysis services and cases in which the enrollee's plan 
authorizes use of OON providers. 
 
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 
a commode chair (E0163) and a cane (E0100) to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve additional routine transportation trips (A0100). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve additional routine transportation trips. You say that you need additional 
transportation trips for dialysis. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you have exhausted the maximum 
benefit of 24 one-way trips for this year. 
 
Medicare does not cover transport in a vehicle that is not an ambulance. However, the Plan offers a 
transportation benefit that exceeds Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plans coverage rules apply in this 
case. The Plan covers a maximum of 24 one-way trips per year.  
 
 We looked at your request, the records in the case file, and the rules. Based on this information, we decided 
that you have exhausted the Plan maximum benefit for coverage of routine transportation. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve additional routine transportation trips (A0100).
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 will clearly benefit from acute 
rehabilitation to optimize his level of functioning prior to returning home. The Plan denied your request. The 
Plan says the enrollee does not meet the Medicare criteria for admission to an IRF. 
 
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 enrollees nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does 
not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. Medical 
problems are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. While the documentation does 
support a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for an intensive, multi-
disciplinary 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 skilled nursing facility (SNF) care. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that the requested admission to a SNF is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested admission to a SNF does not meet 
criteria. 
 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 
service is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee does not have documented 
skilled nursing needs or documented skilled therapy needs. Daily skilled services are not shown to be required 
to establish a maintenance program or to prevent deterioration of the enrollees 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 SNF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve admission to a long-term acute care hospital (LTACH) 
for the enrollee. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee is receiving appropriate in-patient acute care and does not 
require transfer to a Long-Term Acute Care Hospital (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. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee appears to be more stable and improving and should only require short-
term additional acute care services that can safely be completed at the current facility until more appropriate for 
a lower level of care. The patient does not require services at the LTACH that are not already available at the 
current facility. Transfer for LTACH is not medically necessary as it would not be clinically advantageous. 
Completion of treatment at the current facility is 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 admission to a long-term acute care hospital (LTACH) for the enrollee.
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 cannot walk, you are in pain, and you do not 
have anyone at home that can help. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the medical records received 
do not document that you meet the Medicare coverage criteria for admission to an IRF. 
 
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. Medical problems are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. While the documentation does support a need for 
physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for an intensive, multi-disciplinary 
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: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the self-administered drugs provided in an outpatient setting 
from December 8, 2021, to December 9, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the self-administered drugs. You say that you have had this procedure done 
before. You also say that in the past all of the charges were covered. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says the claim processed correctly. 
 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 pay for the self-administered drugs 
provided in an outpatient setting from December 8, 2021, to December 9, 2021.
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 enrollee is stable and suitable for 
transfer to an LTACH. The enrollee's needs cannot be met at a lower level of care. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the enrollee is receiving appropriate in-patient care and does not require transfer to 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. Our 
physician reviewer found that the enrollee appears to be more stable and improving and should only require 
short-term additional acute care services that can safely be completed 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. Transfer for LTACH is not medically necessary as it would not be clinically 
advantageous. Completion of treatment at the current facility is 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: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve use of Nucala. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Nucala. You say that the enrollee will benefit from this combination of 
Nucala and Xolair. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the denial of authorization for this drug is 
correct, because concurrent use of Nucala with Xolair is not supported. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare may pay for unlabeled uses for FDA-
approved 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 Nucala. Our reviewer says that the 
enrollee does not meet the Medicare criteria for the requested use of Nucala. Our physician reviewer found 
Nucala is not Food & Drug Administration (FDA) approved for the enrollee's condition. Nucala is approved for 
use in adults and children 6 years or older with severe asthma as add-on to background asthma therapy in 
patients with an eosinophilic phenotype. The record does not show an eosinophilic phenotype in the enrollee. 
The requested use is not supported by one of the major drug compendia or by clinical research in a Medicare-
approved medical journal. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Nucala have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pre-approve use of Nucala.