Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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 requesting a reconsideration. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says based on the enrollee's current needs we suggest care in 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 enrollee has a medical history of diabetes mellitus type II, obesity, 
hypertension, alcohol use, and hyperlipidemia. The enrollee was admitted to the hospital on September 14, 
2022, for a right femur fracture and then underwent open reduction and internal fixation on September 15, 
2022. The post-operative course was notable for anemia secondary to blood loss that required transfusion and 
hyponatremia. Prior to hospitalization, the enrollee was independent with daily activities and modified 
independent with mobility with the use of a cane. Currently, the enrollee requires minimal assistance with bed 
mobility and moderate assistance with transfers. The enrollee also requires maximum assistance with dressing 
and total assistance with toileting. The request for acute inpatient rehabilitation was denied per guideline policy 
with the rationale that the enrollee does not require rehabilitation physician supervision and an intensive 
rehabilitation program. Care can be provided in another setting such as 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 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 IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the admission to an IRF is 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 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 while you may benefit from additional multiple therapies, including physical and 
occupational therapy, the documentation does not reveal that you require 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 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 LTACH is the most appropriate level 
of care for the enrollee. The enrollee does not need to remain in the intensive care unit, and their needs are too 
complex for a skilled nursing facility (SNF). The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the LTACH is not 
medically necessary, and the enrollee's needs can be met at a lower level of care such as a skilled nursing 
facility (SNF). 
 
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 osteomyelitis of the foot. The record indicates that the 
enrollee is improving but still requires acute care services before transitioning to a lower level of care. 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. 
 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: 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 requested IRF admission services are medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested admission to an IRF does not meet 
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 enrollee is not medically stable and does not need PMR physician's supervision 3 
times a week in an IRF. No acute rehab nursing needs identified or documented. The enrollee does not need 
intensive therapies consisting of at least 3 hours of therapy per day at least 5 days per week with 
multidisciplinary approach in an IRF. While the enrollee may benefit from continued physical therapy, and 
occupational therapy, the enrollee's rehab needs can be safely provided in a lower intensity and alternate setting 
such as in an SNF when stable. 
 
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: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the lab services provided on April 6, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the lab services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the claim was 
billed with the incorrect place 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. 
 
We find that payment for CPT code 81455 is not supported in the medical record. Specifically, the lab services 
must be billed with date the specimen was collected. The records show that the specimen was collected on 
March 2, 2022. As such, the claim was billed with the incorrect date of service. Based on this information, we 
decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the lab services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pay for the lab services provided on April 6, 2022.
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 is not medically 
necessary. 
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for care in a SNF when the four factors 
listed in the Medicare rules section are met. Custodial care is not covered. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve SNF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested SNF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the documentation provided does not indicate that the enrollees conditions require 
the level of observation, evaluation and treatment provided by a physician in the skilled nursing facility setting. 
The enrollee does not require skilled nursing services, including bowel or bladder training, wound care, or tube 
feeding. The enrollee also does not require the level of intensity of skilled therapy services provided in the 
skilled nursing facility setting. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of 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: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Otezla. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Otezla. You say that the enrollee has failed anti-inflammatory medications. 
You also say that the enrollee is avoiding immunosuppressive medications due to their advanced age and risk 
of infections. 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 Otezla.
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 medically stable and will 
benefit from LTACH. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the LTACH is not medically necessary, and 
the enrollee's needs can be met at a lower level of care such as a skilled nursing facility (SNF). 
 
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 there is no documentation provided indicating medical necessity for admission to a 
LTACH. There are no services available at the LTACH that the enrollee requires that are not available at the 
health care setting being offered by the health plan. 
 
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: 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 IRF care is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the IRF care is not medically necessary, and the enrollee's needs can be met at a 
lower level of care such as a skilled nursing facility (SNF). 
 
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 do not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The enrollee's 
medical status does not require intensive physician and nursing oversight in an IRF. While the enrollee 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 acute IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee will benefit from the inpatient 
rehabilitation admission that cannot be accomplished at a lower level of care. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says the enrollee does not need medical monitoring by a rehabilitation doctor. 
 
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 enrollee was admitted with a C2-T12 ligamentous injury after a motor 
vehicle accident who had vomiting and hypoxia. The enrollee was diagnosed with aspiration pneumonia and a 
concussion. Neurosurgery recommended a magnetic resonance imaging of the neck which revealed 
ligamentous instability. A cervical collar was prescribed and a follow up outpatient with neurosurgery. The 
enrollee was noted as medically stable on September 26, 2022. There are no complex nursing or 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. 
 
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 long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the enrollee is not stable enough to 
return home in their current condition. You also say the requested services are medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the LTACH care is not medically necessary. 
 
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 provided documentation indicates that you are receiving appropriate care at the 
present acute care hospital. The reviewer found that 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. Therefore, the reviewer 
found that the requested LTACH services are 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 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 pre-approve facet blocks. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve facet blocks. 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 follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that diagnostic procedures should be performed with the 
intent that if successful, radiofrequency ablation (RFA) procedure would be considered the primary treatment 
goal at the diagnosed level(s). 
 
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 facet blocks. Our reviewer says that the 
services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found according to the coverage criteria, 
therapeutic intra-articular facet injections are not covered unless there is documentation on why RFA cannot be 
performed. In this case, the enrollee had a successful RFA procedure at the same levels. The review has 
determined that the enrollee does not meet the coverage criteria detailed in the LCD. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of facet blocks have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve facet blocks.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a home ventilator (E0466). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a home ventilator. You say that the ventilator is to be used for the treatment 
of COPD. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request for a home mechanical ventilator set in 
iVAPS mode with Auto-EPAP (AE) that could be delivered by BiPAP is not covered. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that ventilators may be covered when they are medically 
necessary for patients who have neuromuscular disease, thoracic restrictive diseases, and chronic respiratory 
failure due to COPD. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve a home ventilator. Our reviewer says 
that the service is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the record indicates that you have 
hypercarbic chronic respiratory failure from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The provided record is 
insufficient to establish the medical necessity of the requested service.  The provided primary source 
documentation does not contain sufficient detailed information in the medical record to justify the treatment 
selected. You could be treated with a BiPAP machine with AVAPS capability.  The plan has indicated 
coverage for such a device is available upon request. The elements of the coverage criteria are not satisfied. 
The requested service cannot be recommended. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of a home ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a home ventilator (E0466).
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the IRF is medically necessary. 
 The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the IRF care is not medically necessary, and the enrollee's needs 
can be met at a lower level of care, such as a skilled nursing facility (SNF). 
 
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 do not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. Your medical status does 
not require intensive physician and nursing oversight in an IRF. While you may benefit from additional 
multiple therapies, including physical and occupational therapy, the documentation does not reveal that the 
patient requires or can tolerate 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an oxygen concentrator (E1390) provided on February 19, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the oxygen concentrator. You say that this item was medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the equipment was purchased from a supplier that does not participate 
in the Medicare program. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare payment cannot be made to a provider that is 
not enrolled in the Medicare program. 
 
Review of the file and Medicare records indicates that the provider at issue is not enrolled in the Medicare 
program. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an oxygen concentrator (E1390) 
provided on February 19, 2022.