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 the IRF admission is medically necessary. 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 enrollee does not meet the CMS coverage criteria for an IRF admission. The 
enrollee is medically stable and does not need, medical monitoring by a physical medicine and rehabilitation 
physician with close supervision for conditions described above 3 times per week (at a minimum). The enrollee 
was getting daily physical therapy (PT) and occupational therapy (OT) in the skilled nursing facility (SNF) and 
is making good progress. The enrollee needs continued PT and OT and does not need 3 hours a day x 5 days a 
week of therapies with multidisciplinary approach in an IRF. The enrollee has no medical complexity currently 
to warrant an admission to an IRF. While the enrollee would benefit from PT and OT, the enrollees rehab 
needs can be safely provided in an alternate and low intensity setting such as in an SNF or in-home with 
services.  
 
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: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Simponi Aria. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the medication. You say that you are appealing with supporting records. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says that 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 medication. Our reviewer says that 
the criteria for coverage of Simponi Aria have not been met. Our physician reviewer found that the Plan 
requires a trial of at least two of the following drugs Enbrel, Humira, Renflexis, Skyrizi, Cosentyx or Rinvoq 
before they will approve the requested drug. In this case, the enrollee has not tried and failed the required 
drugs. There is no documentation provided indicating that the Plan's required drugs would likely be less 
effective or likely have adverse effects for 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 medication have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve Simponi Aria.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the lab services (87205) provided on October 29, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the lab services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the billed code is 
not supported. 
 
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, the CPT Code Manual definition of code 87205 is "Smear, primary source with interpretation; 
Gram or Giemsa stain for bacteria, fungi, or cell types". 
 
We asked our coder 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 lab services. Our reviewer says that the use of code 
87205 is not supported by the records provided. Our reviewer found that there is no evidence of documentation 
to support that procedure 87205 was performed on the date in question.  
We looked at this coder's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the lab services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pay for the lab services (87205) provided on October 29, 2022.
Appeal type: ER
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for an emergency room (ER) visit provided on 
August 07, 2023, to August 09, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for an emergency room (ER) visit. You say that you were 
admitted, therefore, you should not have an ER copayment. 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 $90 
copayment for emergency services. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $90 copayment for an emergency room (ER) visit. This item/service falls within 
the emergency services 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 waive the copayment for an 
emergency room (ER) visit provided on August 07, 2023, to August 09, 2023.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Freestyle Lite test strips. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the blood glucose test strips. You say that the requested test strips are 
medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says only the preferred brand products listed in 
the EOC are covered.  
  The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that plans may specify brands and manufacturers as 
preferred and charge lower cost-sharing for the preferred brands or may limit the DME to only those preferred 
brands and manufacturers. Plans must ensure that enrollees have access to all medically necessary (including 
non-preferred) DME products or brands. The rules also say that a health plan must disclose to its enrollees, in 
clear accurate terms, the benefits offered under a plan, including applicable conditions and limitations 
associated with receipt or use of benefits. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. According to the EOC, the requested brand is not a preferred brand 
for the blood glucose test strips. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Freestyle 
Lite test strips.
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. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says admission to an IRF does not meet criteria.  
 
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 
was admitted for frequent falls. 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. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different level of care. 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.  
 
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 Nucala. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the drug. You say that this was medically necessary for severe asthma. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request is not medically necessary based on the information 
submitted. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for a drug or biological only if it is safe 
and effective and otherwise reasonable and necessary.  
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the drug. Our reviewer says that the 
requested drug is not medically reasonable or necessary. Our physician reviewer found that in this case, the 
record indicates that the enrollee has a diagnosis of moderate asthma, not documented as eosinophilic in nature. 
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 record provided is insufficient to establish that the 
enumerated requirements of the coverage article are satisfied. The record provided does not establish the 
medical necessity and reasonableness, as defined by Medicare rules, of the requested service. The elements of 
the coverage criteria are not satisfied.  
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 Nucala.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve implantation of a Smart Optimizer device (0408T). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve implantation of a Smart Optimizer device. You say that the services are 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says medical necessity has not been established. Therefore, 
coverage criteria have not been met. 
 
The Plan 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 implantation of a Smart Optimizer 
device. Our reviewer says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and 
necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found cardiac contractility modulator devices are still in an 
investigational status and not considered a proven device in treating advanced heart failure. 
 We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of implantation of a Smart Optimizer device have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve implantation of a Smart Optimizer device (0408T).
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a ventilator (E0466). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a ventilator. You say that the services are necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says based on the documentation provided, coverage criteria has not been met. 
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that ventilators may be covered when they are medically 
necessary for patients who have neuromuscular disease, thoracic restrictive diseases, and chronic respiratory 
failure due to COPD. Claims for ventilators used to provide CPAP or bi-level CPAP therapy will be denied as 
not reasonable and necessary. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve a ventilator. Our reviewer says that the 
services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found a home ventilator is not medically 
necessary. This enrollee may benefit from bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) with volume assurance as 
an outpatient. The records do not show this has been tried. Medicare does not cover a home ventilator when 
used at settings that can be provided with BiPAP. 
 
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 ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a ventilator (E0466).
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health services provided from November 22, 2022, 
to December 15, 2022.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for home health services. You say that the medical records provided are valid to 
support the necessity of the home health services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services are 
not medically necessary.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that home health care services may be covered if it is 
medically necessary for the enrollee to receive skilled nursing or therapy. A doctor must certify the need for 
home health care services. 
 
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 home health services. Our reviewer says that 
the services are not medically reasonable and necessary. Our physician reviewer found that during the time of 
home health services requested November 22, 2022, to December 15, 2022, there is no supporting 
documentation to show that physician signed or agreed with the plan of care only with signed prescription for 
evaluation treatment. Thus, the records do not show that the plan of care with home health skilled nursing, 
occupational and physical therapy was medically reasonable and necessary for treatment and/or improve the 
enrollee's function or condition. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of home health services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pay for the home health services provided from November 22, 2022, to December 15, 2022.
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 medically necessary The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says you do 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for 82 units of procedure code 95004 rendered on September 18, 
2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the 82 units. You say that this should be paid for. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says the documentation does not support that excess units were provided. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that submitted claims in which the unit of service 
exceeds the MUE value cannot be paid when the MAI value is 3, unless there is evidence justifying the excess 
units.  
 
In this case, the MUE for CPT code 95004 is 80. The MAI value for this code is 3. You billed 82 units of this 
code, exceeding the MUE.  
 
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 95004. Our reviewer says that the services at 
issue in this case are not supported by the medical records. Our reviewer found that the enrollee has allergic 
contact dermatitis, allergic rhinitis, dermatitis due to ingested food, and dermatitis. Skin prick testing was 
performed (82 units of procedure code 95004 rendered on September 18, 2023). However, two of the controls 
were mistakenly duplicated and additionally requested for coverage. Only 80 units are covered. Therefore, the 
remaining 2 units will be considered not medically necessary.   
 
We looked at this physicians review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of 95004 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pay for 82 units of procedure code 95004 rendered on September 18, 2023.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve a continuous glucose monitor (CGM). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the CGM. You say that the CGM is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says that the Medicare coverage criteria was not met. 
 
The Plan must follow 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 met. Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee is using Lantus insulin and 
hence meets the criteria for a CGM. 
 
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 been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-
approve a continuous glucose monitor (CGM).  
  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 medically necessary 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.