Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Partially Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to waive the cost sharing for the ECG. We decided that the Plan does not have to 
waive the cost sharing for the office visit.  
 
You asked the Plan to reduce the cost sharing for the office visit, and the ECG provided by an in-network 
provider on June 26, 2023. You say that you think that the cost sharing should be lower. The Plan says that this 
cost sharing was charged correctly. 
 
We decided that the Plan has to waive the cost sharing for the ECG.  
 
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 says that outpatient diagnostic tests and 
therapeutic services and supplies are covered up to 100% of the approved amount. The Plan says you must pay 
a $8.34 deductible for the ECG. Based on the Plan contract, however, you cannot be asked to pay any cost 
sharing for the ECG. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to waive the cost sharing for the ECG.  
 
We also decided that the Plan does not have to waive the cost sharing for the office visit. 
 
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 there is a $250 
deductible which applies to certain items and services, and that you must pay a 20% coinsurance of the 
approved amount after you meet your annual deductible for in and out-of-network facility evaluation and 
management services. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $100.55 deductible for the office visit. This item/service falls within the 
physician/practitioner services, including doctors office visits benefit category. The Plan has followed 
Medicare rules by clearly disclosing in the contract that there is a $250 deductible which applies to 
physician/practitioner services, including doctors office visits. This cost sharing is a contractual obligation that 
had not been met at the time the office visit was provided on June 26, 2023. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to waive the cost sharing for the office visit provided by an in-network provider on June 26, 
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: 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. Without IRF services your 
health will decline. 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 can be provided in 
a lower level of care. Your needs do 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 in 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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a CardioMEMS device. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a CardioMEMS device. You say that this is medically necessary for the 
enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this is experimental and therefore is not covered. 
 
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 a CardioMEMS device. Our reviewer 
says that the requested CardioMEMS device is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. 
Our physician reviewer found there remains a dearth of randomized, blinded clinical studies examining long-
term clinical outcomes establishing the value of CardioMEMS in patient management. Therefore, the reviewer 
found that the requested CardioMEMS 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 a CardioMEMS device have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve a CardioMEMS device.
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 you to be 
discharged back to home. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says your records do not show complex 
rehabilitation needs that require frequent evaluation by a rehabilitation physician. The Plan says services may 
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 your 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 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: 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 of denied 
authorization. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the coverage criteria has not been met  
 
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. 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. The enrollee 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for continuous glucose monitor (CGM) supplies provided on 
May 17, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for CGM supplies. You say that you are appealing with supporting records. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says this claim was not billed with the appropriate date of service. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that if a DMEPOS supplier uses a delivery/shipping 
service, the date of service may be the date of delivery or the shipping date. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The record shows that the shipping date for these supplies was May 
9, 2023 and the delivery date was May 11, 2023. Therefore, the date of service billed on this claim matches 
neither the shipping date nor the delivery date. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of CGM supplies have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for 
continuous glucose monitor (CGM) supplies provided on May 17, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 99070 billed for date of service September 4, 
2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 99070. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says procedure 
code 99070 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 99070 has a status indicator of B on the Physician Fee Schedule. This means that 
procedure code 99070 is not separately payable. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of procedure code 99070 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay 
for procedure code 99070 billed for date of service September 4, 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 the enrollee meets full acute inpatient rehabilitation 
criteria. 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 the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The enrollee 
does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical or occupational therapy, at an 
intensive rehabilitation therapy program. 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. The 
enrollee continues to have a need for skilled therapy with ongoing safety concerns and a potential for functional 
improvement; however, the documentation doesnt support that they 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 rehabilitation services 15 hours a week, under the supervision of a physician with at least 
three visits weekly to regain or maintain their functional status. The enrollee 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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a lower extremity revascularization procedure. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the revascularization procedure. You say that your leg is not getting enough 
blood. You say that you have fallen due to the lack of circulation in the leg. You also say that your doctor 
advised you need a stent. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested procedure is 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 revascularization procedure. Our 
reviewer says that the requested revascularization procedure is not considered medically reasonable and 
necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found the provided documentation indicates that the enrollee has 
bilateral leg pain however no significant arterial disease is identified on the right and arterial disease is isolated to the peroneal artery on the left. There is documentation of palpable and brisk pedal pulses bilaterally. The 
documentation is not supported by ankle brachial indexes (ABIs) or other objective measurement of arterial 
perfusion. There is no evidence of significant arterial disease in either lower extremity other than isolated to the 
left peroneal artery. Intervention for single tibial disease is generally not warranted. Therefore, the reviewer 
found that the revascularization procedure is 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 the revascularization procedure have not been met. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pre-approve a lower extremity revascularization procedure.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Retacrit. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve these services. You say that you disagree with the denial. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the services are not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that Retacrit is covered when specific criteria are met. 
 
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 these services. Our reviewer says that 
the services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has anemia of chronic 
disease with a hemoglobin of 11.0 g/dl and a hematrocrit of 33.7 percent. The criteria for coverage are not met 
and the Retacrit is not reasonable or 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 these services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve Retacrit.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) and supplies.  
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) and supplies. You say that you need 
to monitor your blood sugar multiple times per day. You also say that you have been using these sensors for 
many years and it works well for you. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the records do not show that 
you are being treated with insulin or have had episodes of hypoglycemia. 
 
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 continuous glucose monitor (CGM) and supplies have not been met. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pre-approve a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) and supplies.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve incontinence supplies.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve incontinence supplies. You say that the items are necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the requested items are not covered. 
 
The Plan covers all items that Medicare covers. Medicare rules state that incontinence supplies are not covered 
because they are hygienic items that are non-reusable.  
 
While incontinence supplies may be appropriate in this case, neither the Plan nor Medicare offers coverage of 
these items. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve incontinence supplies.
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 enrollee does not meet 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 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: Outpatient Therapies
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve 12 additional physical therapy visits. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the therapy services. You say that 12 additional physical therapy visits are 
medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 12 additional physical therapy visits are not 
medically necessary.  
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for medically necessary outpatient 
therapy. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the therapy services. Our reviewer says 
that skilled services are not necessary to restore or maintain function or to prevent deterioration of the enrollee's 
condition. Our physician reviewer found you have previously been treated with outpatient therapies and should 
be independent with a home exercise program. There is no documentation of a recent injury or decline in 
function. The additional therapy services are not an appropriate duration and frequency for treatment of your 
medical condition and therefore are not medically necessary. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the therapy services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve 12 additional physical therapy visits.