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 services are medically necessary to increase your 
strength before returning home. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says your needs can be met in an 
alternative setting such as a skilled nursing facility or at home with skilled 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 you do not require treatment by multiple therapies. 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 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 a very short stay at an inpatient rehabilitation facility 
will provide the most efficient and effective treatment at this point in the enrollees life. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says based on Medicare guidelines and the information we have about the enrollee's 
condition they do not meet all the requirements. 
 
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 enrollees nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The enrollee 
was admitted for cervical spine surgery. Medical problems are stable. There are no complex nursing or 
rehabilitation needs. While the medical records support a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there 
is no documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a 
different level of care. 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 IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve a crown for tooth #14. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the dental services. You say that your tooth has three large fractures and a 
couple small fractures, and this may lead to a root canal. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the 
records your dentist provided do not indicate your tooth has significant breakdown as defined by the coverage 
criteria. 
 
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. The Plan covers the dental 
services when the services are medically necessary and reasonable. 
 
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 dental services. Our reviewer says 
that the criteria for coverage for a crown restoration (D2740) for tooth #14 is medically necessary. Our 
physician reviewer found the patient's symptoms suggest a cracked tooth (pain with biting pressure, cold 
sensitivity). The photographs submitted verify that cracks emanating from the alloy restorations. A crown 
restoration is the standard of care to restore such a tooth. This would likely prevent further fracture and more 
involved treatment and provide adequate masticatory function. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
the Plan's rules for coverage of the dental services have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to 
pre-approve a crown for tooth #14.  
 
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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a group 1 power wheelchair (K0800). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a power wheelchair. You say that the enrollee cannot do daily activities 
without the wheelchair, and it can be harmful to his health. The enrollee would be at risk to fall and is diabetic 
and has bad feet. He uses a cane and cannot walk long distances. He has special shoes with braces for his 
diabetes which is the cause of everything. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request is not 
medically necessary because records do not show the enrollee is unable to complete MRADLs. The enrollee 
does not meet the requirements for approval. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that a PMD will not be covered if the patient does not 
have mobility deficit that impairs their participation in MRADLs, the patients condition can be ameliorated by 
a walker, cane or manual wheelchair, or the patient is not capable of safely operating the requested PMD.  
 
The file shows that you do not have a mobility deficit that impairs your participation in MRADLs. This means 
that Medicare rules for coverage of a PMD have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a group 1 power wheelchair (K0800).
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 had surgery but before that, you went to the gym 
three times a week and you feel intense rehab is needed. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says based on 
Medicare guidelines, the IRF services you are requesting do not meet the requirements for approval. 
 
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 you may benefit from physical and occupational therapy, your rehab needs can be 
provided in a lower intensity and alternate 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 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 home ventilator (E0466). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a home ventilator. You say that the ventilator was recommended by your 
doctor to help you stay out of the hospital and/or keep your oxygen levels from dropping. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the device to assist with breathing requested does not meet the requirements for 
approval. 
 
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 you have COPD, with frequent 
exacerbations requiring hospitalization.  ABG on January 14, 2023, during an exacerbation, it shows a normal 
pH and pCO2. Thus, there is no chronic CO2 retention and no need for ventilatory support during sleep. 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: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health services provided from May 11, 2022, to 
June 9, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the home health services as billed. You say that you disagree with the denial. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the claim has not been billed with the correct admission date. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that for home health services that are continuing from 2021, a 
NOA must be submitted for the first period of care in 2022, using the first date of the period as the admission 
date. Subsequent claims must report this new date as the admission date in order for the claim to be matched to 
the correct NOA.   
We reviewed the file and the Medicare rules. We find that the admission date reported on the claim at issue 
does not match the date for the NOA which is filed for the first date in 2022 as required. Based on this 
information, we find that the Medicare rules for payment of the claim at issue have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health services provided from May 11, 2022, to June 9, 
2022.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for the walker (E0143) provided on August 29, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the walker. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that this patient has 
previously received the same or a similar item from a different provider on the same date. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare health plans must make reasonable and 
diligent efforts to gather and forward to the IRE information regarding its decision to deny coverage or 
payment. 
 
The Plan has not made reasonable and diligent efforts to gather and forward to us information regarding their 
decision to deny your request. The Plan argues that the walker is not covered because it was a replacement for 
the same or similar item paid by the Plan. However, the Plan has not provided documentation that the same or 
similar item was provided and paid for. Without supporting documentation, the Plan's denial cannot be 
substantiated. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for the walker (E0143) provided on August 29, 
2022.  
 
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: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a maxillary partial denture (D5213). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the dental services. You say that your teeth are moving out of place because 
you lost your partial denture. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says your benefit for the requested item 
or service has already been exhausted. 
 
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, certain limitations apply. The record 
shows your benefit for the requested item or service was exhausted on date of service September 24, 2019. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a maxillary partial denture (D5213).
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 lives alone and needs to be able to 
function independently. Without IRF services they will regress and decline. The Plan denied your request. The 
Plan says the request 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 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 IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health services provided from May 18, 2022, to 
June 14, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the home health services as billed. You say that you disagree with the Plan's 
denial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the claim has not been billed with the correct admission 
date. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that for home health services that are continuing from 2021, a 
NOA must be submitted for the first period of care in 2022, using the first date of the period as the admission 
date. Subsequent claims must report this new date as the admission date in order for the claim to be matched to 
the correct NOA.  
 We reviewed the file and the Medicare rules. We find that the admission date reported on the claim at issue 
does not match the date for the NOA which is filed for the first date in 2022 as required. Based on this 
information, we find that the Medicare rules for payment of the claim at issue have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health services provided from May 18, 2022, to June 
14, 2022.
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 just had a blood transfusion and cannot 
travel over 70 miles away. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the admission to an IRF 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 that the enrollee does not have complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. While the 
medical record supports a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different level of care. 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 IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health services provided from February 12, 2022, 
to March 13, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the home health services as billed. You say that you disagree with the denial. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the claim has not been billed with the correct admission date. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that for home health services that are continuing from 2021, a 
NOA must be submitted for the first period of care in 2022, using the first date of the period as the admission 
date. Subsequent claims must report this new date as the admission date in order for the claim to be matched to 
the correct NOA.   
We reviewed the file and the Medicare rules. We find that the admission date reported on the claim at issue 
does not match the date for the NOA which is filed for the first date in 2022 as required. Based on this 
information, we find that the Medicare rules for payment of the claim at issue have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health services provided from February 12, 2022, to 
March 13, 2022.
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 based on Medicare 
guidelines and the information we have about your condition you do not meet all the requirements. 
 
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. You were admitted for 
weakness and shortness of breath. Medical problems are stable.  There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. While the medical records support a need for physical 
and/or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. Medically 
necessary care can be provided in a different level of care. There is not a reasonable expectation that you will 
be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Orios Allograft. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the services. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says there is insufficient reliable evidence in the form of high-quality peer-reviewed medical 
literature to establish the safety and efficacy of the requested product for use in fusion procedures. 
 
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 services. Our reviewer says that the 
requested services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer 
found that the health plan approved the L5-S1 lumbar laminectomy and fusion with associated inpatient 
admission. However, there is limited published, large-scale, long-term peer-reviewed literature that shows this 
request to be an effective and/or safe treatment for the noted pathology. 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 Orios allograft, 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 the services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve the Orios Allograft.