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 admission is medically necessary for the enrollee. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's medical condition requires further evaluation and 
treatment in the current acute care hospital. The Plam says the enrollee's rehabilitation needs are not complex 
and once medically stable for acute hospital discharge,services 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 you would like to regain your independence. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the required services can be provided in an alternate setting.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not require an 
acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. Medical problems are 
stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. 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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a tertiary level of care with an out-of-network (OON) 
provider.  
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a tertiary level of care with an OON provider. You say that you were 
referred to the tertiary care provider because of your pancreatic cyst increasing in size and because the need for 
care is urgent. You say that you would feel more comfortable going to the requested provider since you have 
dealt with them in the past and are confident in their reputation. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 
the treatment being requested can be rendered in a community level setting and a tertiary care center is not 
required. The Plan referred the enrollee to a contracted gastroenterologist in a non-tertiary level of care facility. 
 
Medicare rules generally allow plans to restrict enrollees to using plan providers as long as there are plan 
providers available to meet enrollees needs. Your contract with the Plan says that, with few exceptions, you 
must use contract providers for care.  
 
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 tertiary level of care with an OON 
provider. Our reviewer says that a tertiary level of care is not medically reasonable and necessary in this case. 
Our physician reviewer found the Plan's denial is medically justified on the basis that it is offering adequate 
care to meet the enrollee's medical needs through referral to a network, non-tertiary level of care provider.  
 
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 tertiary level of care with an OON provider have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a tertiary level of care with an out-of-network (OON) 
provider.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you are requesting reconsideration for the denied 
claim. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you 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 can be provided in a 
lower level of care and does not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to 
rehabilitation care. You require treatment by multiple therapies, including physical therapy and occupational 
therapy, but this can be provided in a lower level of care. There is documentation that there is a reasonable 
expectation that you will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy 
program provided in an IRF, but the services required can 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 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 pay for lab services provided on July 12, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the lab services. You say that this should be paid for. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says you billed with an incorrect place of service on the claim. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that, for lab services, the POS code must reflect the 
location in which the sample was taken. POS code 81 is used to describe samples taken by the laboratory 
directly.  
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of the lab services have not been met. Specifically, this claim was billed with the laboratory POS 
code. The records do not support that the sample was taken in a laboratory setting. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pay for lab services provided on July 12, 2023.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the self-administered drugs provided from August 17, 2023, 
through August 25, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the medication. 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 pay for the self-administered drugs 
provided from August 17, 2023, through August 25, 2023.  
 
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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for Outpatient Intravenous Insulin Therapy (OIVIT) services 
provided on August 15, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for OIVIT services. You say that this should be paid for. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the records do not support the services billed. 
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that OIVIT is not reasonable and necessary for any 
indication. Services comprising an Outpatient Intravenous Insulin Therapy regimen are nationally non-covered 
under Medicare when furnished pursuant to an OIVIT regimen. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pay for Outpatient Intravenous Insulin Therapy (OIVIT) services provided on August 15, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve sacroiliac joint (SIJ) radiofrequency ablation (RFA) 
(64625). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SIJ RFA. You say that the services are necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says medical necessity has not been established. Therefore, coverage criteria have not been 
met. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that SIJ Denervation (also called Radiofrequency 
Ablation or RFA) is not considered 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 SIJ RFA. Our reviewer says that the 
services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found this is considered 
experimental/investigational because of the wide variation in efficacy as reported in the peer reviewed 
literature. Therefore, the request is deemed not medically reasonable and 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 SIJ RFA have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve sacroiliac joint (SIJ) radiofrequency ablation (RFA) (64625).
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the home-delivered meals. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the home-delivered meals. You say that you went to the hospital with a 
kidney infection, bladder infection, urinary tract infection, colitis and sepsis. You say you were also seen by 
cardiology and diagnosed with heart failure. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the service is not 
covered. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that Medicare generally does not cover home-
delivered meals. However, the Plan offers a home-delivered meal benefit that exceeds Medicare coverage. For 
that reason, the Plans coverage rules apply in this case. 
 
 
 We looked at the file and the Plans rules. Based on this information, we decided that the Plans rules for 
coverage of the home-delivered meals have not been met. Specifically, the admitting/discharged diagnosis was 
delirium. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the home-delivered meals.
Appeal type: Other
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve complete upper and lower dentures (D5110, D5120). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the dental services. You say that the items are necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says your benefit for the requested item or service has already been exhausted. 
 
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, certain limitations apply. The record 
shows your benefit for the requested item or service was exhausted on date of service March 26, 2021. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve complete upper and lower dentures (D5110, 
D5120).
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 a CGM. You say that you would like this CGM. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the medical criteria for a CGM have not been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that therapeutic CGMs are considered medically 
reasonable and necessary when prescribed in accordance with their FDA indications for enrollees with diabetes 
who are insulin treated or who have a history of problematic hypoglycemia, and have had an in-person visit 
with their treating physician to evaluate their diabetes control and determine whether the criteria for coverage 
have been met. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The documentation indicates that the enrollee does not use insulin. 
Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of a CGM have not been met. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a continuous glucose monitor (CGM).
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for the services (93010) provided on June 8, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that code 93010 is a 
column II code to column I code 92960. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare health plans must make reasonable and 
diligent efforts to gather and forward to the IRE information regarding its decision to deny coverage or 
payment. 
 
The Plan has not made reasonable and diligent efforts to gather and forward to us information regarding their 
decision to deny your request. The Plan argues that code 93010 is a column II code to column I code 92960. 
While this is correct, the Plan has not provided documentation showing that code 92960 was billed on the date 
of service in question. Without supporting documentation, the Plan's denial cannot be substantiated. Therefore, 
we decided that the Plan has to pay for the services (93010) provided on June 8, 2023.  
 
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: ER
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for initial hospital care rendered on July 26, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. You say that this should be paid for. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says two of the billed diagnosis codes cannot be reported together. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that providers must comply with ICD-10-CM coding 
guidelines. One such guideline indicates that certain diagnosis codes have an Excludes1 note which lists other 
diagnosis codes with which they cannot be reported.   
In this case, we have confirmed that R17 has an Excludes1 note in relation to K72.00. This means that the two 
diagnosis codes cannot be reported together. Based on this information, we decided that the Medicare billing 
rules for the services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for initial 
hospital care rendered on July 26, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code S9083 billed for date of service May 6, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code S9083. You say that you would like the Plan to reconsider their 
denial of payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the billed code is invalid for Medicare 
purposes.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate procedure code. 
 
We find that procedure code S9083 has a Status Indicator of I on the Physician Fee Schedule. This means that 
procedure code S9083 is not valid for Medicare purposes. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare 
rules for coverage of procedure code S9083 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pay for procedure code S9083 billed for date of service May 6, 2022.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Freestyle Libre 2 continuous glucose monitor (CGM).  
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a CGM. You say that the enrollee would benefit from this CGM. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the medical criteria for a CGM have not been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that therapeutic CGMs are considered medically 
reasonable and necessary when prescribed in accordance with their FDA indications for enrollees with diabetes 
who are insulin treated or who have a history of problematic hypoglycemia, and have had an in-person visit 
with their treating physician to evaluate their diabetes control and determine whether the criteria for coverage 
have been met. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The documentation indicates that the enrollee does not use insulin or 
have a history of problematic hypoglycemia. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of a CGM have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a 
Freestyle Libre 2 continuous glucose monitor (CGM).
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 these services would benefit the enrollee. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the required services can be provided in an alternate setting.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the 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. Medical 
problems are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs.  The enrollee does 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 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: 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 the enrollee has had a significant change in their 
level of ability and balance and needs help with strengthening. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
request for SNF services is not medically necessary. 
 
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 the enrollee does not have daily skilled nursing needs that require the specialized 
skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional nurse. The enrollee does not have daily skilled therapy 
needs that require the specialized skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional therapist. The 
enrollee does not require daily skilled nursing and/or skilled therapy on an inpatient basis in a skilled nursing 
facility (SNF) setting. 
 
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.