Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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 need rehab to regain mobility in your left knee 
so that you can safely return home. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you do not meet the 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 you do 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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve CardioMEMs device (33289).  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve CardioMEMs device. You say that the enrollee would benefit from 
implantation of this wireless monitoring system given worsening heart failure despite management utilizing 
current gold standards. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the clinical value and effectiveness of the 
CardioMEMs device has not been demonstrated in the peer-reviewed literature. 
 
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 CardioMEMs device. Our reviewer 
says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found that 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 enrollees 
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 CardioMEMs device have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve CardioMEMs device (33289).
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home visit provided on July 18, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the home visit. You say that you are appealing the denial with supporting 
documentation. 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 visit provided 
on July 18, 2022.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a pneumatic compression device (E0652, E0667, 
E0656). to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a pneumatic compression device (E0652, E0667, E0656).. You say that the 
items are medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the  records received do not 
indicate that you have an emergent or urgent medical condition or are in need of specialized service. There are 
in-network provider(s) within a reasonable distance from your location that can provide this service or 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 pneumatic compression device (E0652, E0667, E0656). to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) 
provider.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for evaluation and management services provided on March 6, 
2023, by an out-of-network (OON) provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the OON evaluation and management services. You say that the assisted living 
facility is responsible to obtain prior authorization for all of their patients, which should also cover the provider 
who supplied the medical treatment in dispute.  The Plan denied your request. The Plan says authorization was 
not obtained prior to the services being rendered.  
 
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 requested provider in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan had network providers 
available who could have provided the items/services at issue in this appeal. The Plan did not pre-approve the 
item/service at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay for these items/services. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for evaluation and management services provided on 
March 6, 2023, by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the requested services. You say that IMRT will be used to avoid the 
hippocampus. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that there are conflicting randomized trial results in 
the requested setting.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that if there are no specific coverage rules for an item 
or service, then that item or service will be covered when it is 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 requested services. Our physician 
reviewer found that IMRT for hippocampal sparing is an evolving technique. The most recent National 
Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines state that hippocampal-avoidance (HA) PCI using IMRT 
may be considered as a potential strategy to improve cognitive preservation. Given the guidelines recognition 
of hippocampal sparing IMRT as a consideration in the setting of prophylactic brain radiation, and at least on 
randomized trial demonstrating a benefit, and the data for other solid cancers showing the benefit with respect 
to quality of life and neuro-cognition, hippocampal-sparing whole brain radiation could feasibly considered to 
be in accordance with accepted standards of care for small cell lung cancer. Therefore, the treatment could be 
considered in accordance with accepted standards. 
 
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 requested services have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to 
pre-approve Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT).  
 
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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve external mobile cardiovascular telemetry with 
electrocardiographic recording. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the requested services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
enrollee is at low risk for a life-threatening cardiac event.  
 
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 requested services. Our physician 
reviewer found that a mobile cardiac outpatient telemetry (MCOT) monitor was requested. There is no 
supportive evidence that any standard, non-MCOT, ambulatory ECG monitoring was tried. There is 
insufficient documentation to support the medical necessity for an MCOT monitor in this enrollees 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 requested services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve external mobile cardiovascular telemetry with electrocardiographic recording.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home visit provided on April 17, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the home visit. You say that the assisted living facility is responsible to obtain 
prior authorization for all of their patients. 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 visit provided 
on April 17, 2023.
Appeal type: Outpatient Mental Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the psychotherapy services provided on February 28, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the psychotherapy services. You say that you are requesting reconsideration of 
the denied claim. 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 psychotherapy 
services provided on February 28, 2023.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve special supplemental benefits for the chronically ill 
(SSBCI).  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SSBCI benefits. You say that the service is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the criteria for eligibility have not been met.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that, to qualify for SSBCI, an enrollee must have a 
documented chronic condition that is life threatening or significantly limits the health or function of the 
enrollee, has a high risk of hospitalization or adverse health outcomes, and requires intensive care coordination.   
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of SSBCI benefits have not been met. Specifically, we have confirmed that you are not at high risk 
for an unplanned hospitalization. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve special 
supplemental benefits for the chronically ill (SSBCI).
Appeal type: Outpatient Therapies
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve physical therapy (PT) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the therapy services. You say that the services are medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested services are not medically reasonable and necessary. 
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for medically necessary outpatient 
therapy. 
 
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 therapy services. Our reviewer says 
that skilled services are not necessary to restore or maintain function or to prevent deterioration of the enrollee's 
condition. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has previously been treated with outpatient therapies and 
should be independent with a home exercise program. There is no documentation of a recent injury or decline 
in function. The additional therapy services are not an appropriate duration and frequency for treatment of the 
enrollees medical condition and therefore are 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 therapy services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve physical therapy (PT) services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the ophthalmic testing provided on February 16, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the ophthalmic testing. You say that you are requesting reconsideration of the 
denied claim. 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 ophthalmic testing 
provided on February 16, 2023.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a total electric hospital bed (E1399). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a total electric hospital bed. You say that you cannot get up from the bed by 
yourself. Your arms do not work correctly especially your right arm. You have no help at home. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the requested bed is not covered by Medicare or the health plan. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that a total electric hospital bed is not covered.  
 
While a total electric hospital bed may be appropriate in this case, neither the Plan nor Medicare offers 
coverage for this item. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a total electric hospital 
bed (E1399).
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you need acute rehabilitation and if it is not given 
then it will be detrimental to your care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an IRF admission is not 
medically necessary.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
  We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found that your medical problems are stable and there are no complex nursing or 
rehabilitation needs. While the medical record supports a need for physical or occupational therapy, there is no 
documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different 
level of care. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute 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 enrollee requires continued treatment 
in an LTACH setting for current medical and physical complications. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says the enrollee does not meet all the requirements for an LTACH 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 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 requested service cannot be recommended as 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: Outpatient Therapies
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve physical therapy (PT) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the therapy services. You say that the enrollee needs continued therapy to 
address remaining strength issues, improve balance, and improve functional activities. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the requested services are not medically reasonable and necessary. 
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for medically necessary outpatient 
therapy. 
 
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 therapy services. Our reviewer says 
that skilled services are not necessary to restore or maintain function or to prevent deterioration of the enrollee's 
condition. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has previously been treated with outpatient therapies and 
is independent with a home exercise program. There is no documentation of a recent injury or decline in 
function. The additional therapy services are not an appropriate duration and frequency for treatment of the 
enrollees medical condition and therefore are 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 therapy services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve physical therapy (PT) services.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a left open carpal tunnel release with excisional biopsy. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the surgical service. You say that this procedure is necessary for the 
enrollee.  The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this procedure is not medically necessary as 
conservative treatments have not been tried. 
 
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 surgical service. Our reviewer says 
that the requested carpal tunnel surgery is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found detailed documentation regarding a trial and failure of recent, reasonable, 
comprehensive, less invasive conservative care measures is not evident. There are limited large-scale, long-
term references supporting the requested surgery in this clinical setting without a trial and failure of conservative measures. There was no compelling rationale presented, or extenuating circumstances noted to 
support the medical necessity of this request as an exception. Therefore, the reviewer found that the requested 
carpal tunnel surgery 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 surgical service have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a left open carpal tunnel release with excisional biopsy.