Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve home health services. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve home health services. You say that the services are necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the services are not medically necessary.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that home health care services may be covered if it is 
medically necessary for the enrollee to receive skilled nursing or therapy. A doctor must certify the need for 
home health care services. 
 
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 home health services. Our reviewer 
says that the services are not medically reasonable and necessary. Our physician reviewer found the wound 
dressing does not require skilled nursing services. There is not excess drainage, and the wound does not require 
sterile dressing. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of home health services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve home health 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 would like to request reconsideration of the 
denied IRF services and that the services requested are medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The 
Plan says the inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) services you are requesting do not meet the requirements for 
approval.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section.  
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not require an 
acute rehabilitation 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, 
at an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. You continue to have a need for skilled therapy with ongoing 
safety concerns and a potential for functional improvement; however, the documentation does not support that 
you would meet criteria for admission to an acute inpatient rehabilitation facility. There is no indication that 
you would require skilled rehabilitation in an IRF, participating in rehabilitation services 15 hours a week, 
under the supervision of a physician with at least 3 visits weekly to regain or maintain your functional 
status. You can receive further services at a lower 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: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve home health services. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve home health services. You say that the services are necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the services are not medically necessary.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that home health care services may be covered if it is 
medically necessary for the enrollee to receive skilled nursing or therapy. A doctor must certify the need for 
home health care services. 
 
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 home health services. Our reviewer 
says that the services are not medically reasonable and necessary. Our physician reviewer found clinical 
documentation shows that the enrollee has a forearm laceration and chronic comorbidities but does not specify 
any complex wound care, acute clinical status, medication or plan of care changes. Thus, the records do not 
show that home health skilled nursing services are required to effectively provide treatment, care, and/or 
services in order to improve the enrollee's condition, or to establish/perform a maintenance program to 
maintain the enrollee's condition and/or prevent deterioration. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of home health services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve home health services.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a cardiac contractility modulation device. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a cardiac contractility modulation device. You say that the enrollee has 
failed all conservative treatments. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says a cardiac contractility 
modulation device is considered experimental and 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 a cardiac contractility modulation 
device. Our reviewer says that a cardiac contractility modulation device is considered experimental and 
investigational. Our physician reviewer found that while the clinical studies led to an FDA approval in 2019, 
the cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) device 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. Therefore, 
the CCM system is not medically necessary 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 a cardiac contractility modulation device have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a cardiac contractility modulation device.
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 meets CMS guidelines for 
an LTACH admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request 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 the enrollee does not have complex wound care needs and does not meet LTACH 
admission criteria. 
 
 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 you require extensive hands on assistance from the 
nursing and therapy staff at the hospital to get out of bed. You say your doctor says that you will need closer 
medical management of your current medical needs and disease. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 
the IRF services requested do not meet the requirements for approval.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section.  
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found 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 or occupational therapy, at an intensive rehabilitation 
therapy program. You continue to have a need for skilled therapy however, the documentation doesnt support 
that you meet criteria for admission to an acute inpatient rehabilitation facility. There is no indication that you 
would require skilled rehabilitation in an IRF, participating in rehabilitation services 15 hours a week, under 
the supervision of a physician with at least three visits weekly to regain or maintain your functional status. You 
can receive further services at a lower 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 long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the LTACH is medically necessary for 
the enrollee's health and well-being and for the wound care services needed. The Plan denied your request. The 
Plan says the request 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 the enrollee does not require services at the LTACH that are not already 
available at the current facility. 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 would not be clinically 
advantageous and 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: 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 this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the criteria for the SNF admission. 
 
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 qualify for SNF coverage. The enrollee does not have 
documented skilled nursing needs. The enrollee does not have documented skilled therapy needs. The enrollee 
appears to be functioning at/near her previous baseline. Daily skilled services are not required to establish a 
maintenance program or to prevent deterioration of the enrollees condition. The enrollees care needs, 
custodial and intermittent, can, as a practical matter, be provided at a lower 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 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: 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 currently meets LTACH 
admission criteria. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request for LTACH services to be covered 
does not meet the requirements for approval. 
 
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 does not require services at the LTACH that are not available at the 
acute care hospital. 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 Plan. Given there are offered alternatives, LTACH care 
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 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an electronic connection (E2310). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the feature. You say that you want to appeal this denial. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says there is no medical need to control the power option through a joystick. 
 
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 feature. Our reviewer says that the 
requested electronic connection is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the provided records indicate that the enrollee has adequate strength to manage 
standard power drives. Therefore, the reviewer found that the requested electronic connection is not medically 
reasonable or necessary. 
 We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the feature have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve an electronic connection (E2310).
Appeal type: ER
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an emergency department visit (procedure 99285) provided 
on April 27, 2023. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for the service. You say that the claim should be paid. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says the service is not supported by the records. 
 
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 a medically appropriate history and/or examination and high level 
of medical decision making. 
 
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 service. Our reviewer found the Health Plans denial 
should be upheld. The enrollee was evaluated in the emergency department (ED) for dental pain right arm 
swelling. A limited history was documented. An appropriate physical examination was documented. Despite a 
generous work-up, the medical decision making was not of high complexity. As such, the billing of CPT 
99285 is not supported. 
 
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 service have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pay for an emergency department visit (procedure 99285) provided on April 27, 2023.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Group 3 power wheelchair with multiple power 
options (tilt/recline, legrests) and accessories. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a Group 3 power wheelchair with multiple power options. You say that this 
is medically necessary for the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there is no medical need 
for the requested power options. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that a Group 3 power wheelchair with multiple power 
options may be covered when all of the 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 a Group 3 power wheelchair with 
multiple power options. Our reviewer says that the requested Group 3 power wheelchair with multiple power 
options is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the provided documentation shows that the 
enrollee does not have high risk for skin breakdown, use a catheter intermittently, have spasticity or require an 
alternative means of managing power drive. Therefore, the reviewer found that the requested Group 3 power 
wheelchair with multiple power options is not medically reasonable or necessary. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of a Group 3 power wheelchair with multiple power options have not been met. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Group 3 power wheelchair with multiple 
power options (tilt/recline, legrests) and accessories.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve custom fabricated abutment  includes placement 
(D6057), surgical placement of implant body: endosteal implant (D6010), and implant supported 
porcelain/ceramic crown (D6065). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve custom fabricated abutment), surgical placement of implant body: endosteal 
implant, and implant supported porcelain/ceramic crown. You say that the services are necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the requested services are not covered. 
 
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 custom fabricated abutment  includes placement (D6057), surgical placement of implant body: endosteal 
implant (D6010), and implant supported porcelain/ceramic crown (D6065).
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Rituxan.  
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Rituxan. You say that you disagree with the Plan's denial. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the requested drug is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that Rituxan is only covered for certain indications. 
 
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 Rituxan. Our reviewer says that the 
documentation does not support that the requested drug is medically reasonable or necessary. Our physician 
reviewer found the enrollee has Wegener's granulomatosis without renal involvement. The accepted use of this 
drug for the enrollee's condition requires the enrollee will be taking rituximab product in combination with 
glucocorticoids. In this case, the enrollee does not meet these requirements. Therefore, the enrollee does not 
have a diagnosis/condition that meets criteria for the requested drug. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Rituxan have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Rituxan.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a blepharoplasty of the upper eyelid (15823). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the service. 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 not medically 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 the service. Our physician reviewer 
found the enrollee in this case does not meet coverage criteria for a blepharoplasty, upper eyelid. Visual field 
testing does not demonstrate a minimum of 12 degree or 30 percent loss of upper field of vision that is 
improved with taping. Therefore, Medicare criteria are not met. 
 
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 service have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a blepharoplasty of the upper eyelid (15823).