Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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 needs to continue with the 
care of the infection and fluid in the lungs, manage the pleur-x catheter, which is not available at another level 
of care due to the cost of the treatment and assist the enrollee with his personal care. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says services can be provided in another setting such as skilled nursing 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 there is no documentation provided indicating medical necessity for admission to a 
LTACH. The enrollee is receiving appropriate care at the present acute care hospital. At the time of the request for LTACH services, the enrollee is extubated and maintained on 2L oxygen by nasal canula. He has a chronic 
pleural drain with plans for fluid removal on non-dialysis days. He requires a negative pressure room, 
hemodialysis MWF and continued physical and occupational therapies. The review has determined that the 
enrollee does not require services at the LTACH that are not available at the acute care hospital where he is 
currently receiving care. 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. The requested LTACH services are not 
medically necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee and able to be 
furnished safely and effectively only on an inpatient basis. 
 
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 pay for procedure code 99283 billed for date of service August 9, 
2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the billed code. You say that the claim was incorrectly denied. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says an appropriate modifier was not billed. 
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate code. 
 
We find that CPT code 99283 was not billed with a modifier to indicate the service was separate and distinct 
from minor surgical procedure code 30901 provided by the same physician on the date of service at issue. 
Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the billed code have not been met. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 99283 billed for date of service 
August 9, 2023.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Favorable

We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care.

You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that the stay is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the stay is not medically necessary based on SNF criteria.

The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for care in a SNF when the four factors listed in the Medicare rules section are met. Custodial care is not covered.

We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve SNF care. Our reviewer says that the requested SNF care is considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our physician reviewer found you require the level of observation and treatment provided in terms of physician oversight and skilled nursing care. You were admitted to the hospital on 12 30 2023, for altered mental status. You were found to have a urinary tract infection and sepsis. Your mental status and sepsis have improved, but you would benefit from daily skilled nursing for medication management and oversight of your multiple medical issues, including nocturnal hypoxia. You were modified independent with mobility and daily activities prior to your hospitalization and have had a decline in function and mobility. You would benefit from more intensive occupational and physical therapies to increase your level of independence and ideally return to your home. Therefore, the skilled nursing facility care is medically 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 SNF care have been met. The Plan must continue coverage for the SNF skilled service until such time as the enrollee no longer needs the service and proper notice has been issued, or the 100-day Medicare benefit is exhausted. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care.

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: 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 requires inpatient acute rehabilitation in 
effort to facilitate increased independence and return to the home and community with improved quality of life. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's condition does not meet all the requirements for 
inpatient rehabilitation admission. The Plan says services may be provided at a lower level of care.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section.  
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found 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 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. It is not a 
reasonable expectation that the enrollee will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive 
rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Prolia. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Prolia. You say that the requested injection is medically necessary for the 
enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee did not meet the step therapy requirements. 
 
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 injections. Our physician reviewer 
found that the Plan requires a trial of intravenous (IV) bisphosphonate, zoledronic acid before they will approve 
Prolia. Our physician reviewer found that based on the medical records provided there is no indication that the 
enrollee has tried and failed the required drug. Our physician reviewer found that there is no indication that the 
Plans required drug would likely be less effective and/or likely have adverse effects for the 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 Prolia have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pre-approve Prolia.
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 admission is medically necessary for the enrollee. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says based on the clinical information the enrollee is limited from a 
recent illness and your therapy needs are not complex in nature and can be provided at a lower level of care.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found 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 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. It is not a 
reasonable expectation that the enrollee will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive 
rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: 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 admission to an IRF is medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says you do not meet the Medicare criteria for admission to an IRF.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found that the complexity of your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not require 
an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. Your medical problems 
are stable. You do not require treatment by multiple therapies. 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 
you will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in 
an IRF.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for office visits provided on June 14, 2023, and 
August 29, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for the office visits. You say that you should not have to pay a 
copayment for office visits under this Plan. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this cost sharing was 
charged correctly. 
 
The rules say Plan must disclose to its enrollees in clear, accurate terms all cost sharing information (such as 
copayments, deductibles, and coinsurance). Your contract with the Plan clearly says that you must pay a $20 
copayment for each covered out-of-network visit or consultation in an outpatient location with a primary care 
provider. You have been asked to pay a $20 copayment for each office visit. These services fall within the 
physician/practitioner services, including doctors office visits benefit category. This means that you have been 
asked to pay the correct amount based on your contract with the Plan. This cost sharing is a contractual 
obligation you agreed to pay when you enrolled in the Plan. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to waive the copayment for the office visits provided on June 14, 2023, and August 29, 2023.
Appeal type: Other
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Azopt Sus 1% Op. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the medication. You say that the medication is necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the medication is not covered as a medical benefit under the Plan. 
 
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 Azopt Sus 1% Op.   
Benefits for the medication may be available under Medicare Part D. Contact the Plan that administers Part D 
benefits for further information concerning any benefits and appeal rights.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a non-pneumatic compression controller and half leg 
garments. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the non-pneumatic compression controller and half leg garments. You say 
that the Dayspring device provides many key elements of conservative therapy. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says the requested items are 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 non-pneumatic compression 
controller and half leg garments. Our reviewer says that the requested items/services are not considered 
medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee has a history of 
lymphedema who reportedly failed conservative measures. The enrollee was a right open ulceration. A request 
was mode for a non-pneumatic compression controller (Dayspring) and half leg garments. However, the 
provided documentation did not clearly explain why trying a standard pump and compression garments would 
not be appropriate or effective to warrant a request for a non-pneumatic compression device which is not 
standard of care based on the limited current high-quality evidence to support its use over the standard 
treatments available today. Therefore, the Dayspring device will be considered not medically necessary at this 
time. 
 
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 non-pneumatic compression controller and half leg garments have not been 
met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a non-pneumatic compression controller 
and half leg garments.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Omnipod Dash Pods (Gen 4). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the medication. You say that the medication is necessary for the enrollee. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the medication is not covered as a medical benefit under the Plan. 
 
 
 
 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 the Omnipod Dash Pods 
(Gen 4).  
 
Benefits for the medication may be available under Medicare Part D. Contact the Plan that administers Part D 
benefits for further information concerning any benefits and appeal rights.
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 admission is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the criteria for the IRF admission.  
 
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 with debility from acute illness as described above does not meet CMS 
coverage criteria for the IRF admission. 
The enrollee is medically stable as described above and does not need a physicians supervision 3 times a week 
in an IRF. 
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. The complexity of the enrollees medical, rehab, and 
nursing needs (combined complexity) does not require acute hospital inpatient rehab stay with an 
interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitative care as the enrollees rehab needs can be provided in a low intensity 
alternate setting such as in a skilled nursing facility (SNF).  
 
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 you recently underwent a right above the knee 
amputation and need inpatient rehabilitation to obtain maximum level of independence so I can return home 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says your condition does not meet all the requirements for inpatient 
rehabilitation admission. The Plan says services may be provided at a lower level of care.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section.  
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not require an 
acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. 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. It is not a 
reasonable expectation that you will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation 
therapy program provided in an IRF.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a continuous glucose monitor (CGM). You asked the Plan to pre-approve the CGM. You say that you are tired of using needles to stick your finger 
and your blood sugar is always high. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the Medicare criteria was not 
met. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that therapeutic CGMs may be considered reasonable and 
necessary for enrollees with diabetes who meet the criteria referenced 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 the CGM. Our reviewer says that the 
CGM coverage criteria was not met. Our physician reviewer found that the coverage criteria for a CGM 
requires low blood sugars or insulin use. This enrollee is not having blood sugars less than 80 and is not using 
insulin. Hence, although the CGM may help the enrollee, the coverage criteria for the CGM are not met. If the 
enrollee begins insulin, documentation should be submitted and the case re-reviewed. 
 
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 CGM have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve a continuous glucose monitor (CGM).