Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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 is medically stable and ready 
for this level of care.  The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's condition does not meet the 
criteria 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 enrollee is improving and will be able to continue care in the current setting until 
it is appropriate for 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 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 long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the enrollee needs this care to regain 
maximum function. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's condition does not meet the 
criteria 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 enrollee's care can be safely provided at the current facility until they are more 
stable and appropriate for transfer to another level of care. 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: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that you would like reconsideration based on 
the records submitted. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not have clinical 
conditions that cannot be appropriately treated in the current hospital, and there are no issues for which the 
LTACH may offer a therapeutic advantage.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that LTACH services are covered if they are medically 
necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the LTACH services. Our reviewer says 
that the requested LTACH care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found that the enrollee appears to be somewhat unstable but is improving with current 
treatment and requires additional acute care services that can safely be provided at the current facility until more stable and appropriate for transfer. There are no services at the LTACH that the enrollee requires that are 
not already available and covered at the current facility. Transfer to the LTACH is not medically necessary as 
the patient is not yet stable for transfer and as it would not be clinically advantageous at this time.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve LTACH services.
Appeal type: Outpatient Therapies
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the hot pack therapy (97010) billed for dates of service July 
11, 2023, to September 19, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 97010. You say that these services should be covered because 
they were medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says procedure code 97010 is 
considered bundled and not separately payable.  
 
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 97010 has a status indicator of B on the Physician Fee Schedule. This means that 
procedure code 97010 is not separately payable. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of procedure code 97010 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay 
for the hot pack therapy (97010) billed for dates of service July 11, 2023, to September 19, 2023.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the self-administered drugs from August 23, 2023, through 
September 12, 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 from 
August 23, 2023, through September 12, 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: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the intraoral-comprehensive series of radiographic images 
(D0210) provided on September 18, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for this service. You say that you are requesting a reconsideration of the Plan's 
denial for payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says your benefit for the service provided 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 service provided was exhausted on date of service June 16, 2022.   
 
 
Specifically, the Plans contract states that an intraoral-comprehensive series of radiographic images or 
panoramic x-ray are covered once every three years. You previously received a panoramic x-ray on June 16, 
2022, less than three years prior, which was paid for by the Plan. Therefore, you have exhausted the allowable 
benefit for this service. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the intraoral- 
comprehensive series of radiographic images (D0210) provided on September 18, 2023.
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Prolia. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve the drug. You say that you have gastroesophageal reflux disease and need 
these injections for it. You say that you have taken oral medication for five years, but your physician refused 
you to take them due to your gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms. The Plan denied your request. The 
Plan says that the step therapy requirements have not been met.  
 
Medicare covers Part B medications when they are reasonable and necessary but allows health plans to 
implement step therapy criteria. The Plan's contract indicates that it has implemented such criteria for certain 
Part B medications. 
 
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 drug. Our reviewer says that Prolia 
is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that you have not tried and failed the Plan's required 
drugs ibandronate, pamidronate, zoledronic acid. Also, there is no indication that the Plan's required drugs 
would likely be less effective or likely have adverse effects for you. 
 
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 drug have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Prolia.
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 the CGM. You say that the requested CGM is medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the Medicare coverage criteria was not met. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that therapeutic CGMs may be considered reasonable and 
necessary for enrollees with diabetes who meet the criteria referenced 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 the CGM. Our reviewer says that the 
CGM coverage criteria was not met. Our physician reviewer found that the coverage criteria for a CGM 
requires low blood sugars or insulin use. Although the CGM may help this enrollee with their diet and blood 
glucose control, as the enrollee is not having low blood sugars nor is the enrollee on a medication that typically 
causes low blood sugars. 
 
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 CGM have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve a continuous glucose monitor (CGM).
Appeal type: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for rotary wing air mileage (A0436) and rotary wing air 
transport (A0431) provided on February 24, 2023. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for rotary wing air mileage (A0436) and rotary wing air transport (A0431). You say 
that you play no role in deciding whether or when to transport a patient via emergency air ambulance. You also 
say you respond to calls from first responders and treating physicians. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says these services were not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for air ambulance services only if your 
medical condition is such that transportation by ground ambulance is not appropriate.  
 
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 pay for rotary wing air mileage (A0436) and rotary 
wing air transport (A0431). Our reviewer says that the enrollee does not meet the criteria for the rendered 
services. Our physician reviewer found ground transport would have transferred this stable patient within two 
hours. Our physician reviewer also found that ground transport was not contraindicated in this patient who was 
not requiring emergent cathetor. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of rotary wing air mileage (A0436) and rotary wing air transport (A0431) have not 
been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for rotary wing air mileage (A0436) and 
rotary wing air transport (A0431) provided on February 24, 2023.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the enrollee is stable and suitable for an 
LTACH admission and cannot be adequately cared for at a skilled nursing facility (SNF). The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says that the enrollee needs continued treatment that can only be given in a hospital setting, 
and when they are ready to leave the hospital, they can receive this care in another setting. 
 
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 considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found the enrollee requires inpatient level services that will likely meet or exceed 25 additional days. 
Their care provider has attested that they require services that are not available at the current facility including 
intensive respiratory therapy, occupational therapy (OT), physical therapy (PT), and management of their 
pleural effusions. They have extensive additional co-morbidities including diabetes, pancreatitis and atrial 
fibrillation. Their care provider has also attested that a continued stay at the current facility will be detrimental 
to the health and recovery of 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 the LTACH services have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to 
pre-approve LTACH 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: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the IRF admission is the best level of care for the 
enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the criteria for the 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. 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. There is not a 
reasonable expectation that this enrollee will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive 
rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF as medically necessary care can be provided in a different 
level of care.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a continuous glucose monitor (CGM). You asked the Plan to pre-approve the CGM. You say that the requested CGM is medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the Medicare coverage criteria was not met. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that therapeutic CGMs may be considered reasonable and 
necessary for enrollees with diabetes who meet the criteria referenced 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 the CGM. Our reviewer says that the 
CGM coverage criteria was not met. Our physician reviewer found that the coverage criteria for a CGM 
requires insulin use or low blood sugars. This enrollee is not having low blood sugars that we are told of and is 
not on medications that cause low blood sugars typically; although, a CGM might help the enrollee, the criteria 
for coverage 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 CGM have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve a continuous glucose monitor (CGM).
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 needs this level of care. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's needs can be managed at the current facility until they 
are more stable for transfer to another level of care.  
 
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.  
 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 pay for inpatient hospital services provided on February 16, 2023, to 
February 21, 2023, at the Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) originally billed.  
You asked the Plan to pay for the inpatient hospital services at the DRG originally billed. You say that the 
claim is billed correctly and should be paid. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says documentation does 
not support the billed code. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report inpatient hospital services with the appropriate DRG, which is based, in part, on the 
reported principal and secondary diagnosis codes.   
 
In this case, you billed the inpatient services provided with secondary diagnosis code J96.22, defined as acute 
and chronic respiratory failure with hypercapnia. 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 pay for 
the inpatient hospital services at the DRG originally billed. Our reviewer says that documentation does not 
support the billed code. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee is a 57-year-old female who presented to the 
hospital with nausea, vomiting, shortness of breath. Workup revealed blood oxygen level (SpO2) 98%. She was 
started on low dose (3 L/m) oxygen support. She was diagnosed with pneumonia and intractable 
nausea/vomiting and treated for such. Her respirations were not labored, and she was not in acute distress. 
Therefore, without clear evidence of the enrollee experiencing acute respiratory failure, the diagnosis code 
J96.22 is not supported for this admission. The enrollee did not require high flow oxygen, bilevel positive 
airway pressure (BiPAP), or vent support and was not in acute respiratory distress.   
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided the 
medical records do not substantiate the DRG as billed. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay 
for inpatient hospital services provided on February 16, 2023, to February 21, 2023, at the Diagnosis Related 
Group (DRG) originally billed.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that you are appealing the denial. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says that the enrollee does not meet LTACH requirements. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that LTACH services are covered if they are medically 
necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the LTACH services. Our reviewer says 
that the requested LTACH care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found that the enrollee has had one attempt at ventilator weaning for approximately 5.5 
hours and had low tidal volumes and low saturation. Additional attempts are warranted, as it is quite likely that 
the enrollee will not require prolonged weaning to get back to baseline. 
 We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve LTACH services.