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 to an IRF is medically necessary for the 
enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the Medicare criteria for 
admission to an IRF.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the patient 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 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 this patient will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive 
rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for continuous glucose monitor supplies billed for date of 
service June 30, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the billed supplies. You say that relevant documentation was provided. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the documentation requirements have not been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules state that DMEPOS is covered only when there is a valid 
physician order, proof of delivery and relevant medical records which support medical necessity.  
 
The record does not contain relevant medical records which support medical necessity for the supplies provided 
in this case. The medical records provided show that the enrollee was seen for a sore throat. There are 
insufficient medical records to show that the enrollee has had an in-person visit with their treating physician, 
within six months of the date of service at issue, to evaluate their diabetes control and to determine whether the 
criteria for coverage have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for continuous 
glucose monitor supplies billed for date of service June 30, 2023.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you need IRF services to regain mobility. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says that you do not meet the requirements for an 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 found to be medically reasonable and necessary for you. Our physician reviewer found on 
review of the available records; you meet CMS coverage criteria for an IRF admission. You are medically 
complex and need physician supervision, physical medicine and rehabilitation treatment three times per week. 
At the current functional level, you need physical therapy and occupational therapy with intensive therapies 
consisting of at least three hours of therapy per day at least five days per week with a multidisciplinary 
approach to rehabilitative care. Your rehabilitation needs cannot be safely provided in a low-intensity alternate 
setting such as 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 IRF care have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-approve 
acute IRF admission and services.  
 
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: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for vision services received on July 14, 2023, with an out-of-
network provider.  
You asked the Plan to pay for the vision services. You say that the services were necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the provider is out-of-network and there was no authorization or referral for these 
services. 
 
Medicare generally does not cover routine vision and eyewear services. However, the Plan offers a routine 
vision and eyewear benefit that exceeds Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plan's coverage rules apply in 
this case. The Plan covers these services when you utilize an in-network provider. 
 
We looked at the file and the Plan's rules.  Based on this information, we decided that the Plan's rules for 
coverage of the vision services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for 
vision services received on July 14, 2023, with an out-of-network provider.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health care billed for dates of service June 13, 
2022, to July 12, 2022. You asked the Plan to pay for the billed services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the NOA was 
not received timely.  
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that an NOA must be submitted within 5 days of the start of 
care date for home health services. NOAs which are received more than 30 days from the timely filing date 
result in no payment being made for the episode of care.  
 
In this case, the start of care date is March 15, 2022. The NOA was not received by the Plan until September 
22, 2022. As more than 30 days passed between the timely filing date and the NOA receipt, no payment can be 
made on this claim. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health care billed for 
dates of service June 13, 2022, to July 12, 2022.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the electrical connection between the wheelchair 
controller and two or more motors (E2311), expandable controller (E2377) and harness (E2313). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the electrical connection between the wheelchair controller and two or more 
motors (E2311), expandable controller (E2377) and harness (E2313) . You say that the items are medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the items are not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that items and services that are not medically 
necessary are not covered.  
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the electrical connection between the 
wheelchair controller and two or more motors (E2311), expandable controller (E2377) and harness (E2313) . 
Our reviewer says that the requested items are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. 
Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has adequate upper extremity strength and function to operate the wheelchair's power options with their own switches. 
 
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 electrical connection between the wheelchair controller and two or more 
motors (E2311), expandable controller (E2377) and harness (E2313)  have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the electrical connection between the wheelchair controller 
and two or more motors (E2311), expandable controller (E2377) and harness (E2313).
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an office visit provided on September 21, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for an office visit. You say that this was medically necessary and should be covered, 
please review the records. 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 an office visit provided 
on September 21, 2023.
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 IRF services as you wish to return to being 
independent as quickly as possible. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you do not meet the 
requirements for an 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 does not require an 
acute hospital inpatient stay, with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. At the current functional 
level, you need physical therapy and occupational therapy however, you do not need, nor would you benefit 
from intensive therapies with a multidisciplinary approach in an IRF. The documents provided do not support 
the need for an IRF admission. Your rehabilitation needs can be safely provided in a low-intensity alternate 
setting such as 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 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 an IRF admission is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the medical necessity criteria for an 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 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 and 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 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve behavioral counseling for obesity to be provided by a 
nutritionist. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve behavioral counseling for obesity. You say that you really need this service. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that this service is only covered when rendered by a primary care 
practitioner and in a primary care setting. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that behavioral therapy for obesity may be covered 
under certain circumstances. 
 
 
  We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of behavioral counseling for obesity have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve behavioral counseling for obesity to be provided by a nutritionist.
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 denial of 
an IRF admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 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 the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. 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.  
 
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: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Keytruda (pembrolizumab, J9271). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Keytruda. You say that this drug is medically necessary and is a 
continuation of care. The enrollee has been doing well on this drug. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says this drug is not medically necessary for the enrollee's condition. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare may pay for unlabeled uses for anti-cancer 
drugs if they are medically accepted as safe and effective or appropriate for the particular use.  
 
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 Keytruda. Our reviewer says that this 
drug does not meet medical necessity criteria in this case. Our physician reviewer found that Keytruda is only 
approved for use in combination with chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, in this case, this has been used as maintenance therapy and there is 
disease progression on the last computed tomography (CT) scan. Chemotherapy is being added now onto 
Keytruda as second-line treatment. This use is not supported by one of the major drug compendia or by clinical 
research that appears in a Medicare-approved medical journal. This request is not considered 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 Keytruda have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Keytruda (pembrolizumab, J9271).
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for an acute inpatient stay provided on August 
14, 2023, to August 19, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for an acute inpatient stay. You say that you were held in the 
emergency room too long and then the hospital kept you longer than you wanted because of paperwork issues. 
You should not have to pay. 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 $365 
copayment for inpatient hospital care.  
You have been asked to pay a $365 copayment for an acute inpatient stay. 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. You have been asked to pay a total of $1,460 for the inpatient hospital stay ($365 
copayment x 4 days = $1,460). You have not been charged for the day you were discharged. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for an acute inpatient stay provided on August 14, 
2023, to August 19, 2023.
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 an IRF admission is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's ongoing skilled therapy and nursing needs can be provided at 
a lower level of care such as at a skilled nursing facility (SNF), on an intermittent basis at home with home 
health care, or in a long-term care 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. The enrollee's 
medical problems are stable and 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 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.