Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Intracept procedure. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the Intracept procedure. You say that the requested procedure fills a 
treatment gap for patients that do not receive adequate relief from traditional conservative methods and don't 
have instability to indicate a fusion is the appropriate treatment. You say that the enrollee has tried and failed 
conservative treatment without relief. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there is little evidence in the 
medical literature to suggest that the requested procedure is appropriate for the enrollee's back pain. The Plan 
says that it is not an accepted standard of medical practice for the diagnosis or treatment of back pain. 
 
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 Intracept procedure. Our reviewer 
says that the Intracept procedure is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the Intracept procedure is experimental. 
 
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 Intracept procedure have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve the Intracept procedure.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for inpatient hospital services provided on October 20, 2020, to 
October 26, 2020, at the Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) originally billed. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for the inpatient hospital services at the DRG originally billed. You say that these 
services were reported correctly and are supported as billed. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
DRG submitted on this claim is not supported in the medical record. 
 
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 acute and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia 
(J96.21). 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 the inpatient hospital services at the 
DRG originally billed. Our reviewer says that this diagnosis is not supported in the medical record. Our 
physician reviewer found although the discharge summary listed a diagnosis of acute on respiratory failure, the 
clinical evidence did not support assignment of the condition. The review has determined that the medical 
records did not support the billing of acute and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia (J96.21).  
 
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 hospital services provided on October 20, 2020, to October 26, 2020, at the Diagnosis Related 
Group (DRG) originally billed.
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 IRF care is a medical necessity for you. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says rules for IRF care have 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 complexity of your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not require 
an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. While the medical 
record supports a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. 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: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for home health services provided on October 27, 2021 to 
November 13, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the home health services. You say that the services were medically necessary. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the claim cannot be paid as billed. 
 The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that an NOA must be submitted within 5 days of the start of 
care date for home health services. NOAs which are received more than 30 days from the timely filing date 
result in no payment being made for the episode of care.  
 
In this case, the claim did not include the required condition code "54" as no skilled services were provided. 
Additionally the admit date on the NOA did not match the "from" date on the claim. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pay for home health services provided on October 27, 2021 to November 13, 2021.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the enrollee is completely stable and able 
to proceed to LTACH level of care. You say that going to a lower level of care would result in a possible return 
to the emergency room. You say that an LTACH is the best option for their care to reach the goal of returning 
home. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an LTACH admission is not medically necessary, and the 
enrollee can get the services they need in another setting. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that LTACH services are covered if they are medically 
necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the LTACH services. Our reviewer says 
that the requested LTACH care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found that the enrollee is more stable and should only require short-term additional acute 
care services that can safely be administered at the current facility. The enrollee does not require services at the 
LTACH that are not already available at the current facility. 
 
   
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve LTACH services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve oncology services to be provided by an out-of-network 
(OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve oncology services. You say that you need treatment and your neurologist 
recommended this provider. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this provider is out-of-network with 
the Plan and you can be treated within the Plan network. 
 
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 
oncology services to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the surgical extraction of tooth #32 (D7230) and deep 
sedation (D9222, D9223). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the extraction and sedation. You say that the tooth is causing damage to 
your mouth. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that surgical extractions (D7230) and deep sedation 
(D9222, D9223) are not covered by your dental benefits. 
 
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 pre-approve the 
surgical extraction of tooth #32 (D7230) and deep sedation (D9222, D9223).
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 
delirium and left sided weakness.  Medical problems are stable.  There are no 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 a 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: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Botox injection (CPT code J0585). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the Botox injection. You say that the medication is medically necessary. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says they do not have a record from the enrollee's prescriber that shows 
they have tried the preferred drug Xeomin and it has not worked, or that they have medical reasons that prevent 
the enrollee from using this preferred drug. 
 Medicare covers Part B medications when they are reasonable and necessary but allows health plans to 
implement step therapy criteria. The Plan's contract indicates that it has implemented such criteria for certain 
Part B medications. 
 
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 Botox injection. Our physician 
reviewer found the requested medication is a new start. The provided records do not indicate that the enrollee 
has tried and failed the Plan's preferred step one alternative. The record does not indicate that the enrollee has a 
contraindication to or would have an adverse effect from the Plan's preferred step one alternative. 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 the Botox injection have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve the Botox injection (CPT code J0585).
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve SNF care. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that you are appealing with supporting records. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the request 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 that the enrollee does not have skilled nursing needs that require the specialized skill, 
knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional nurse. The enrollee does have skilled therapy needs that 
require the specialized skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional therapist. The enrollee does not 
require daily skilled nursing and/or skilled therapy on an inpatient basis in a SNF 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 SNF care.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an epidural steroid injection. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve an epidural steroid injection. 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 epidural steroid injection (ESI) will be considered 
medically reasonable and necessary when specific criteria are met. 
 
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 an epidural steroid injection. Our 
reviewer says that the services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee does not 
have radicular symptoms or spinal stenosis. Therefore, the request is deemed 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 an epidural steroid injection have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve an epidural steroid injection.
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 you are in pain and would be unable to care for 
yourself at home. 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 your medical problems are stable and there are no complex nursing or 
rehabilitation needs. While the medical record supports a need for physical or occupational therapy, there is no 
documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different 
level of care. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the inpatient hospital services provided on November 9, 
2021, to November 11, 2021, at the Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) originally billed. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for the inpatient hospital services at the DRG originally billed. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the billed DRG is 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 diagnosis code A41.9. 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 the inpatient hospital services at the DRG originally billed. Our 
reviewer says that the use of diagnosis code A41.9 is not supported by the records provided. Our physician 
reviewer found that the enrollee was admitted to the hospital with cough and shortness of breath. She was 
diagnosed and treated for pneumonia. The documentation indicates the enrollee had missed hemodialysis. At 
the time of admission, she was hemodynamically stable without new or acute organ dysfunction. She was 
treated for pneumonia and improved. She did not require critical care. The documentation does not indicate that 
the diagnostic work-up and treatment ordered by the treating medical providers supported a diagnosis code of 
A41.9 (sepsis, unspecified organism).  
 
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 the inpatient hospital services provided on November 9, 2021, to November 11, 2021, at the Diagnosis 
Related Group (DRG) originally billed.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the LTACH services are medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the coverage criteria has not been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that LTACH services are covered if they are medically 
necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the LTACH services. Our reviewer says 
that the requested LTACH care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found that the record indicates that the enrollee is improving but still has ongoing acute 
medical issues and requires ongoing acute care services before transitioning to a lower level of care. The 
enrollee continues to receive acute care services, and these services have not been denied. The medical record 
does not indicate that the enrollee requires services that he 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 LTACH services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a microprocessor endoskeletal knee-shin systems 
(L5828) with additional features (L5845, L5848, L5856). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a microprocessor endoskeletal knee-shin systems with additional features. 
You say that this is necessary because you are very active. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this is 
not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that a determination of the type of knee for the prosthesis 
will be made by the treating practitioner and/or the prosthetist based upon the functional needs of the 
beneficiary. Basic lower extremity prostheses include a single axis, constant friction knee. Other prosthetic 
knees are considered for coverage based upon functional classification. 
 
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 microprocessor endoskeletal knee-
shin systems with additional features. Our reviewer says that the requested knee upgrade is not medically 
necessary. Our physician reviewer found there is inadequate documentation that it is medically necessary for 
you to have a microprocessor knee over the standard K3 mechanical knee. The records do not clarify why the 
microprocessor knee is necessary and the standard K3 mechanical knee would not meet your mobility 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 a microprocessor endoskeletal knee-shin systems with additional features have 
not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a microprocessor endoskeletal 
knee-shin systems (L5828) with additional features (L5845, L5848, L5856).