Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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 LTACH services are necessary due to 
the complexity of the enrollee's medical needs and the need for a safe discharge plan. You would like 
reconsideration based on the records submitted. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says admission to an 
LTACH is not medically necessary.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that LTACH services are covered if they are medically 
necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the LTACH services. Our reviewer says 
that the requested LTACH care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found that there are no services at the LTACH that the enrollee requires that are not already 
available and covered at the current facility. Transfer to the LTACH is not medically necessary as the enrollee is not currently stable for transfer and it would not be clinically advantageous.  
 
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: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that a SNF admission is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the necessary care can be provided at an alternate level of care. 
 
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 clinical documentation shows that the enrollee has had acute clinical or functional 
status change and would require assessment by skilled therapy/nursing. Clinical documentation shows that 
patient is currently supervision with all mobility and self-care tasks; However, documentation does not specify 
any daily skilled nursing needs. Therefore, clinical documentation does not support the medical necessity of 
daily skilled services on an inpatient basis in a skilled nursing facility. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of SNF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home infusion therapy provided on April 23, 2023, to 
May 20, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the home infusion therapy. You say that the service was medically necessary. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that unauthorized, out-of-network care is not covered. 
 
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 pay for care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving emergencies, 
out of area urgent care and pre-approved care.  
The provider of the item(s)/service(s) at issue in this appeal is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan 
did not pre-approve the item(s)/service(s) at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay 
for the item(s)/service(s). Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home infusion 
therapy provided on April 23, 2023, to May 20, 2023.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the implantation of the CardioMEMS. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the implantation of the CardioMEMS. You say that the requested service is 
a medical necessity for the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested service is 
experimental/investigational. 
 
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 implantation of the CardioMEMS 
pulmonary pressure sensor. Our reviewer says that the requested items/services are not considered medically 
reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found there remains a dearth of randomized, 
blinded clinical studies examining long-term clinical outcomes establishing the value of CardioMEMS in 
patient management. As a result, at this time the CardioMEMS system would not be considered medically 
appropriate and necessary in this enrollee's clinical management. 
 
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 implantation of the CardioMEMS pulmonary pressure sensor have not been 
met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the implantation of the CardioMEMS.
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 you do not meet the criteria for 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 complexity of your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not require an 
acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. You do not require 
treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive 
rehabilitation therapy program. 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 as 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 pre-approve a back brace (L0650) to be provided by an out-of-
network (OON) provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a back brace. You say that the item should be covered. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says there are in-network providers that can provide this item. 
 
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 back brace (L0650) 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 48 additional rides. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve 48 additional rides. You say that you need more rides to dialysis. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says this request exceeds your benefit limit. 
 
 
 Medicare does not cover transport in a vehicle that is not an ambulance. However, the Plan offers a 
transportation benefit that exceeds Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plans coverage rules apply in this 
case. The Plan covers a maximum of up to 48 one-way trips per year.  
 
We looked at your request, the records in the case file, and the rules. The record shows that as of September 29, 
2023, you had 7 trips remaining. Based on this information, we decided that you have, or will have exhausted 
the Plan maximum benefit for coverage of routine transportation. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve 48 additional rides.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for the inpatient hospital stay provided from 
April 10, 2023, to April 14, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for the inpatient hospital stay. You say that you met your 
maximum out-of-pocket for the year. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this cost sharing was 
charged correctly. 
 
The rules say a 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 $375 
copayment per day, days 1 to 5, for inpatient hospital care. 
 
 You have been asked to pay a $1500 copayment for the inpatient hospital stay ($375 copayment x 4 days = 
$1500). This item/service falls within the inpatient hospital care 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 inpatient hospital stay provided from April 10, 2023, to April 14, 2023.
Appeal type: ER
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an emergency room (ER) visit (99284) provided on April 4, 
2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the ER visit. You say that the services should be covered as you disagree with 
the denial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services denied correctly as they were not 
medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that an emergency exists based on a prudent layperson 
standard, not a retrospective medical review. For symptoms to be considered emergent in nature, they must be 
such that a prudent layperson with an average knowledge of medicine would reasonably expect the absence of 
immediate medical attention would result in serious jeopardy to their health.  
 
 We decided that this case does not meet prudent layperson criteria for emergency care. A prudent layperson 
would not reasonably expect the absence of immediate medical care to seriously jeopardize their health in this 
case. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an emergency room (ER) visit (99284) 
provided on April 4, 2023.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a home ventilator system. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a home ventilator system. You say that the enrollee is not a candidate for 
BiPAP therapy any longer and requires advanced ventilation.  The Plan denied your request. The Plan says a 
home ventilator is not medically necessary for this patient because their needs can be met with an alternative 
device such as a BiPAP device with average volume-assured pressure support (AVAPS).   
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. Claims for ventilators used to provide CPAP or bi-level CPAP therapy will be denied as 
not reasonable and necessary. 
 
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 system. Our reviewer 
says that a home ventilator system is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the records do 
not list a diagnosis of COPD, however, the computed tomography (CT) scan of the chest shows evidence of 
chronic bronchitis. Also, there is no diagnosis of thoracic restrictive disease or generalized neuromuscular 
disease. Additionally, the enrollee may benefit from a BiPAP with AVAP during sleep, but the records do not 
show this has been tried as an outpatient. Therefore, a home ventilator is not 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 a home ventilator system have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve a home ventilator system.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve insertion or replacement of permanent cardiac 
contractility modulation system (0408T, 0409T, 0410T, 0411T). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve cardiac contractility modulation therapy for cardiomyopathy. You say that 
the enrollee should be eligible for this service. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested 
therapy is considered experimental/investigational. There is not enough evidence to show this device is safe 
and effective. 
 
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 cardiac contractility modulation therapy 
for cardiomyopathy. Our reviewer says that the requested items/services are not considered medically 
reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found an exhaustive review of the current 
medical literature pertaining to the cerebral cavernous malformation (CCM) system confirms multiple 
observational studies suggesting clinical benefit from CCM. Several randomized clinical trials of CCM versus 
control have also been reported, along with meta-analysis pooling the data from multiple studies, with CCM 
providing meaningful improvement in quality-of-life scores and objective functional capacity. While the 
clinical studies led to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in 2019, CCM remains the subject of 
multiple studies examining long-term efficacy, as well as randomized, controlled, double-blinded trials to 
quantify clinical efficacy. Until such statistically rigorous studies are completed, it is premature to presume 
clinical outcomes and benefit. At the current time, the reviewer would not consider the CCM system to be 
medically necessary 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 cardiac contractility modulation therapy for cardiomyopathy have not been met. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve insertion or replacement of permanent cardiac 
contractility modulation system (0408T, 0409T, 0410T, 0411T).
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a home ventilator system. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a home ventilator system. You say that the enrollee meets the diagnoses and 
qualifications for the home ventilator system. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says a home ventilator is 
not medically necessary for this patient because their needs can be met with an alternative device such as a 
BiPAP device with average volume-assured pressure support (AVAPS).   
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. Claims for ventilators used to provide CPAP or bi-level CPAP therapy will be denied as 
not reasonable and necessary. 
 
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 system. Our reviewer 
says that a home ventilator system is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the patient 
has extensive medical history that has resulted in chronic respiratory failure which is not compliant with BiPAP 
therapy. Also, there is no documented supported or data to suggest a home ventilator is required or that it will 
resolve the issues of compliance. Therefore, the patients do not meet the requirements of a home ventilator. 
 
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 system have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve a home ventilator system.
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 would like reconsideration based on the records 
submitted. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's condition does not meet medicare 
guidelines for services in 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 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's 
medical problems are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. The enrollee does not 
require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an 
intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While the medical record supports a need for 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 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's complex medical needs. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet 
the guidelines for admission. 
 
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 record indicates that the enrollee has ongoing acute medical issues and still 
requires acute care services. The enrollee continues to receive acute care services, and these have not been 
denied. The medical record does not indicate that the enrollee requires services that they are not currently 
receiving but that would be available at the LTACH facility. The elements of the coverage rules are not 
satisfied. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee is currently facing an extremely complex 
and critical medical situation. You say the enrollee's conditions necessitate specialized care that can only be 
effectively provided in an IRF. You would like reconsideration based on the records submitted. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says 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 the enrollee's medical condition is chronic limiting her endurance. The enrollee is 
functioning at a home care level and able to improve with repetitive exercise. The enrollee can not participate 
in intensive rehabilitation and does not have intensive or complex needs. She does not require frequent 
physiatry oversight.  
 
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.