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 it is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the enrollee does 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 rehab hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The 
enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational 
therapy, at an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. There is not a reasonable expectation that this 
individual will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy program 
provided in an inpatient rehabilitation facility. The enrollee continues to have a need for skilled therapy with 
ongoing safety concerns and a potential for functional improvement; however, the documentation does not 
support that she would meet criteria for admission to an acute inpatient rehabilitation 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 IRF care is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says it 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 the complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not 
require an acute rehab hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The 
enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational 
therapy, at an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. The enrollee continues to have a need for skilled 
therapy with ongoing safety concerns and a potential for functional improvement; however, the documentation 
does not support that she would meet criteria for admission to an acute inpatient rehabilitation facility.  There is 
no indication that the enrollee would require skilled rehabilitation in an IRF, participating in rehab services 15 
hours a week, under the supervision of a physician with at least 3 visits weekly to regain or maintain her 
functional status.  
 
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 the implantable loop recorder (ILR) device. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the ILR device. You say that this device is necessary to help monitor for 
recurrence of atrial fibrillation. You also say that it is needed to determine whether the enrollee needs oral anti-
coagulation. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this is not medically necessary for the enrollee. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that an ILR is used when syncope is thought to be 
cardiac-related but is too infrequent to be detected by either a HolterTM monitor or a traditional pre-symptom 
MLR, 
 
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 ILR device. Our reviewer says that 
the requested ILR device is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found while the patient has a 
history of atrial fibrillation, there is no documentation provided to suggest a history of unexplained syncope, 
cryptogenic stroke or any other apparent indication for an ILR. Therefore, the reviewer found that the requested 
ILR device 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 ILR device have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve the implantable loop recorder (ILR) device.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Ozempic. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the medication. You say that this is medically necessary for the enrollee's 
condition. 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 pre-approve Ozempic.  
 
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: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for a nail debridement (11721) provided on May 15, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the nail debridement. You say that this service should be covered. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says that this is not a covered service. 
 
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 states that the enrollee was informed that this service would not be 
covered. No documentation was provided to show the enrollee was informed this service would not be covered. 
The documentation from the plan refers to an unrelated cataract procedure. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
has to pay for a nail debridement (11721) provided on May 15, 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: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to provide increased reimbursement for a liver elastography provided 
on May 15, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to provide increased reimbursement for a liver elastography. You say that you disagree 
with the reimbursement amount. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that you have been 
reimbursement the correct amount. 
 
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 20% 
coinsurance for out-of-network covered services. 
 
 
 You have been asked to pay a $6.17, which is 20% coinsurance of the allowed amount for the liver 
elastography ($30.84 allowed amount x 20% = $6.17). This item/service falls within the physician/practitioner 
services, including doctors office visits 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. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to provide increased 
reimbursement for a liver elastography provided on May 15, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for wound care supplies provided on June 21, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for wound care supplies. You say that you are requesting reconsideration for 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 wound care supplies 
provided on June 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 needs this care. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says your condition does not meet the 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 your medical, rehabilitation, and nursing needs does not require 
IRF care with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitative care. Your rehabilitation needs can be safely 
provided in an alternate 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 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 it is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the enrollee does 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 rehab hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The 
enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational 
therapy, at an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. The member continues to have a need for skilled 
therapy with ongoing safety concerns and a potential for functional improvement; however, the documentation 
does not support that she would meet criteria for admission to an acute inpatient rehabilitation 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 you are requesting reconsideration for the denial of 
an IRF admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the IRF services requested do not meet the 
requirements for approval.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not require an 
acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. You do not require 
treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, at an intensive 
rehabilitation therapy program. You continue to have a need for skilled therapy however, the documentation 
doesnt support that you would meet criteria for admission to an acute inpatient rehabilitation facility. You can 
receive further services at a lower level of care.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 81456 billed for date of service February 28, 
2023.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 81456. You say that the NCCI has agreed to change the NCCI 
indicator to 1, which would allow payment for these two codes together. The Plan denied your request. The 
Plan says payment for code 81456 is bundled into payment for code 81455. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate CPT code. In this case, we have confirmed that code 81456 is a column II code to column I code 81455 with a modifier indicator of 0. The column II code is therefore not 
payable. Based on the claim submitted, Medicare billing criteria have not been met. Please note that the NCCI 
indicator change that you reference was not officially implemented until October 1, 2023. This date is well 
after your date of appeal. As a result, the Plan cannot be obligated to bypass this edit. You have the right to 
submit the claim again for additional consideration based on the rule change. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 81456 billed for date of service February 28, 2023.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a group 1 standard power operated vehicle (scooter) 
(K0800). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the durable medical equipment (DME). You say that in order to be able to 
do your personal errands and take care of yourself, you need an electric chair that allows you to move without 
problems. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this request is not medically necessary because the 
records do not show you are having problems finishing one or more of your MRADLs inside the home. The 
Plan also says there is also no documentation to show if you can maintain upright posture and safely use a 
scooter, or if the scooter will fit in your home. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that a PMD will not be covered if the patient does not 
have mobility deficit that impairs their participation in MRADLs, the patients condition can be ameliorated by a walker, cane or manual wheelchair, or the patient is not capable of safely operating the requested PMD.  
 
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 durable medical equipment (DME). 
Our physician reviewer found the enrollee does not require a power scooter to complete self-care activities in 
the home. 
 
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 durable medical equipment (DME) have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a group 1 standard power operated vehicle (scooter) 
(K0800).
Appeal type: Testing
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve  the insertion of a subcutaneous cardiac rhythm monitor, 
including programming (Special Long-Term Heart Monitor) (33285). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the service. You say that you would like to appeal this authorization denial. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the Special Long-Term Heart Monitor is not reasonable or 
necessary at this time. 
 
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 service. Our reviewer says that the 
requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found the enrollee does not meet the criteria for long-term invasive heart monitoring. 
 We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the service have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve  the insertion of a subcutaneous cardiac rhythm monitor, including programming (Special 
Long-Term Heart Monitor) (33285).
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 81456 billed for date of service May 7, 2023.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 81456. You say that the NCCI has agreed to change the NCCI 
indicator to 1, which would allow payment for these two codes together. The Plan denied your request. The 
Plan says payment for code 81456 is bundled into payment for code 81455. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate CPT code. In this case, we have confirmed that code 81456 
is a column II code to column I code 81455 with a modifier indicator of 0. The column II code is therefore not payable. Based on the claim submitted, Medicare billing criteria have not been met. Please note that the NCCI 
indicator change that you reference was not officially implemented until October 1, 2023. This date is well 
after your date of appeal. As a result, the Plan cannot be obligated to bypass this edit. You have the right to 
submit the claim again for additional consideration based on the rule change. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 81456 billed for date of service May 7, 2023.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve treatment with compounded Avastin (J7999). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the medication. You say that Avastin is a medical necessity for the enrollee. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the rules for coverage have not been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare may pay for unlabeled uses for FDA-
approved 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 the medication. Our physician reviewer 
found the record indicates that the enrollee has a diagnosis of hemorrhagic retinopathy secondary to Plavix 
use. The Food and Drug Administration has not stated that the requested drug is indicated for the enrollee's 
condition. The Medicare approved drug compendia do not contain a supportive citation for the use of the 
requested drug in the enrollee's clinical situation. The elements of the coverage criteria are not satisfied. The 
requested service cannot be 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 medication have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve treatment with compounded Avastin (J7999).