Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a group 2 power wheelchair. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a group 2 power wheelchair. You say that this is medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet criteria for coverage. 
 
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.  
 
   
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 group 2 power wheelchair. Our 
reviewer says that the item is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found there is limited clinical 
history regarding the enrollees level of mobility and why the enrollee's mobility needs would not be 
sufficiently met with a cane or walker or a manual wheelchair. There is no physical examination regarding the 
enrollees upper extremity range of motion and motor strength. The enrollee is noted to require continuous 
positive airway pressure (CPAP) with supplemental oxygen at nighttime but there is limited clinical history 
regarding the enrollees respiratory condition and if this impairs the enrollee's ability to propel manual 
wheelchair from and a cardiac and respiratory standpoint. A mobility evaluation has not been performed. 
 
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 group 2 power wheelchair have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve a group 2 power wheelchair.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee would benefit from IRF services to 
improve overall functional mobility and safety prior to returning home. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says the enrollee does not meet all the required 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 enrollee's nursing, medical, and rehabilitation needs does 
not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The 
enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational 
therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While the enrollee may benefit form physical therapy 
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 an acute IRF admission and 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 services are medically necessary for the enrollee 
to return to their baseline. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the Medicare 
criteria for admission to an inpatient rehabilitation 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 does 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 inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee is currently in acute care and needs to be 
transferred to the next level of care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says ongoing skilled care can be 
provided in an alternative setting. 
 
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 does 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 inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the services are medically necessary as the enrollee 
requires a multidisciplinary approach to therapy. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does 
not meet the Medicare criteria for admission to an inpatient rehabilitation 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 does 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the pneumatic compression device provided on October 27, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the pneumatic compression device. You say that this device was provided for use 
during the patient's surgery. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says equipment used in a facility for a 
procedure is not separately payable. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules state that for equipment to be covered, it must be appropriate 
and needed for use inside the home.  
 
 
 The item at issue in this appeal is for use outside of the home. Although this item may be helpful, neither 
Medicare nor the Plan covers equipment for use outside the home. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pay for the pneumatic compression device provided on October 27, 2022.
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 service is medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the service is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that items and services that are not medically 
necessary are not covered.  
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the intracept procedure. Our reviewer 
says that the requested service is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found the cause of back pain is unclear in this enrollee. 
 
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 pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you are eager to participate and complete the 
required 3 continuous hours of therapy inpatient rehabilitation that you will not receive in a nursing home. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says you don't meet all the requirements for inpatient rehabilitation. 
Services needed may be provided safely in 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 the complexity of your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not require an 
acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation 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 long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the services are medically necessary for 
the enrollee to continue receiving the care needed. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee 
does not require mechanical ventilation and could be treated at an acute care facility. 
 
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 improving and requires additional short-term acute care 
services that can safely be provided at the current facility until more stable and appropriate for transfer to a 
lower level of care. The enrollee does not require services at the LTACH that are not already available at the 
current facility. 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: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for a periodic oral evaluation (D0120) provided on December 15, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the dental service. You say that you are appealing the denied dental service. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says that your benefit for the requested item or service has already been 
exhausted. 
 
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.  
 
Though the Plan offers a dental benefit in excess of Medicare coverage, certain limitations apply. The Plan has 
not made reasonable and diligent efforts to gather and forward to us information regarding their decision to 
deny your request. There is no evidence showing your benefit for the requested item or service was previously 
exhausted. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for a periodic oral evaluation (D0120) provided on 
December 15, 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a pneumatic compression device (PCD) (E0652) and 
sleeve (E0671) to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a PCD and sleeve. You say that the items are medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says there are in-network provider(s) within a reasonable distance that can 
provide these items. 
 
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 pneumatic compression device (PCD) (E0652) and sleeve (E0671) to be provided by an out-of-network 
(OON) provider.
Appeal type: ER
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 99285 billed for date of service May 24, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the billed services. You say that the service was inappropriately down coded. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the billed code cannot be verified. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate CPT code. 
 
In this case, the CPT Code Manual definition of code 99285 is emergency department visit for the evaluation 
and management of a patient, which requires these 3 key components within the constraints imposed by the 
urgency of the patient's clinical condition and/or mental status: A comprehensive history; A comprehensive 
examination; and medical decision making of high complexity.  
 We find that CPT code 99285 is not supported in the medical record. The records show that the enrollee 
presented for a possible defibrillator malfunction. The enrollee was stable. The records do not show there was 
medical decision making of high complexity. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of the billed services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for 
procedure code 99285 billed for date of service May 24, 2022.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a bone marrow aspirate (20939). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a bone marrow aspirate. You say that this service is medically necessary. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this is experimental. 
 
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 a bone marrow aspirate. Our reviewer 
says that the requested service is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found bone marrow aspirate is experimental when used as bone graft material. 
 
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 bone marrow aspirate have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve a bone marrow aspirate (20939).
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for testing services provided on July 14, 2022, billed with codes 
76770 and 76856. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the testing services provided. You say that the claim was billed correctly and 
should be paid. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says documentation does not support the billed codes. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate CPT code. 
 
In this case, the CPT Code Manual definitions of codes 76770 and 76856 are Ultrasound, retroperitoneal (eg, 
renal, aorta, nodes), real time with image documentation; complete, and Ultrasound, pelvic (nonobstetric), real 
time with image documentation; complete. 
 
We asked our coder to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pay for the testing services provided. Our reviewer says that 
documentation does not support the billed codes. Our reviewer found the record does not contain the 
description of a complete pelvic or retroperitoneal ultrasound. These codes are not supported, there are more 
specific codes for the services performed. 
 
We looked at this coder's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the testing services provided have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pay for testing services provided on July 14, 2022, billed with codes 76770 and 76856.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve continued use of a home ventilator (E0466). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve continued use of a home ventilator. You say that this is medically necessary. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this is not covered. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that 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 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The rules say that the decision to use a 
ventilator or a bi-level positive airway pressure device is made based upon the specifics of each persons 
medical condition. There must be enough detailed information in the medical record to justify the treatment 
selected. 
 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 continued use of a home ventilator. Our 
reviewer says that the elements of the coverage criteria are not satisfied. Our physician reviewer found the 
record indicates that the enrollee has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The provided primary source 
documentation does not contain sufficient detailed information in the medical record to justify the treatment 
selected. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of continued use of a home ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan does not have to pre-approve continued use of 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. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services 
requested is not supported based on the records received. You meet the guidelines for 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 complexity of your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not require an 
acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation 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.