Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for  home health services provided from April 25, 2022, to May 
6, 2022. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for the home health services. You say that the patient was eligible for home health 
coverage. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the NOA was not received timely. As such, this final 
claim was correctly denied.  
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that an NOA must be submitted within 5 days of the start of 
care date for home health services. NOAs which are received more than 30 days from the timely filing date 
result in no payment being made for the episode of care.  
 
In this case, the start of care date is April 25, 2022. The NOA was not received by the Plan until August 31, 
2022. As more than 30 days passed between the timely filing date and the NOA receipt, no payment can be 
made on this claim. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for  home health services 
provided from April 25, 2022, to May 6, 2022.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the MyoPro Motion G orthotic device. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the device. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says this is an experimental technology. 
 
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 device. Our reviewer says that the 
requested services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer 
found that the MyoPro Orthosis is not known to be effective, based on scientific evidence, professional 
standards and expert opinion, in improving health outcomes. The MyoPro is not the standard of care for this 
patient's condition or in widespread use for this patient's condition based on scientific evidence. There is 
insufficient evidence in the literature that the MyoPro Orthosis will improve the long-term outcomes for this enrollee. There is insufficient evidence in the literature that this device will increase participation in bimanual 
activities. 
 
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 device have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve the MyoPro Motion G orthotic device.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the home ventilator (E0466). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the home ventilator. You say that the ventilator is necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the ventilator is not necessary. 
 
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. 
 
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 home ventilator. Our physician 
reviewer found there are no pulmonary function tests to confirm airways obstruction and assess severity. There is no arterial blood gas (ABG) done while stable to confirm chronic carbon dioxide (CO2) retention.  If that is 
present, the enrollee may benefit from bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) with average volume-assured 
pressure support (AVAPS) during sleep. 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 the home ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve the home ventilator (E0466).
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 99284 billed for date of service February 14, 
2023. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 99284. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says payment for 
code 99284 is bundled into payment for code 99285. 
 
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 99284 
is a column II code to column I code 99285. This claim has not been billed with an appropriate modifier to 
bypass the edit. Based on the claim submitted, Medicare billing criteria have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 99284 billed for date of service February 14, 
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. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not 
meet the criteria for admission to an Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility. 
 
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. 
 
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 Gelsyn-3 (J7328). 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve Gelsyn-3. 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. 
 
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 Gelsyn-3. Our reviewer says that the 
services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found 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 and/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 Gelsyn-3 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Gelsyn-3 (J7328).
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the minimally invasive lumbar decompression (MILD) 
procedure. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the MILD procedure. 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 the MILD procedure. Our reviewer says 
that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the MILD procedure is experimental. More research is needed. 
 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 MILD procedure have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve the minimally invasive lumbar decompression (MILD) procedure.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a computed tomographic angiography (CTA) of the 
neck. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a CTA. You say that the enrollee has a strong family history of cerebral 
aneurysm. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request for a CTA of the neck is not medically 
necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that CT scans are covered only when they are 
medically 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 CTA. Our reviewer says that the 
service is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee's primary complaints relate to a 
polyneuropathy. The enrollee has no findings on exam that would readily localize to the vasculature of the 
neck. The enrollee is asymptomatic in that regard. There is nothing to suggest carotid stenosis, and the enrollee 
does not have a first degree relative with an aneurysm that would otherwise raise suspicion for a genetic 
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 the CTA have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve a computed tomographic angiography (CTA) of the neck.
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. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there is no 
documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. 
 
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. 
 
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 outpatient therapy services provided on February 16, 2023, 
by an out-of-network (OON) provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for outpatient therapy services. You say that these services were medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says these services were not authorized. 
 
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 requested provider in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan had network providers 
available who could have provided the items/services at issue in this appeal. The Plan did not pre-approve the 
item/service at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay for these items/services. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for outpatient therapy services provided on February 
16, 2023, by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve capecitabine. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve capecitabine. You say that the enrollee would like reconsideration based on 
the records submitted. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says capecitabine is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare may pay for unlabeled uses for anti-cancer 
drugs if they are medically accepted as safe and effective or appropriate for the particular use.  
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve capecitabine. Our reviewer says that 
capecitabine is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the requested use of capecitabine is 
not FDA-approved. The use of capecitabine is also not supported or recommended by one of the major drug 
compendia or by clinical research. We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Capecitabine have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve capecitabine.
Appeal type: Outpatient Therapies
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an additional 10 physical therapy (PT) visits.  
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve the therapy services. You say that additional therapy is needed to assist in 
recovery. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says additional 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 the records provided show that the enrollee was approved for 20 PT 
visits which were provided. The additional requested therapy is not generally accepted as specific and effective 
therapy for the enrollee's condition beyond what was approved by the health plan. The records do not 
demonstrate that the unique skills of a professional therapist are required to safely and effectively provide 
treatment, that the services can be safely and effectively performed only by a therapist, or by or under the 
supervision of a therapist. The requested services are not part of a maintenance program, and the specialized 
skill, knowledge and judgment of a qualified therapist is not required to establish, design and/or deliver a 
program to maintain the enrollee's current condition or to prevent or slow further deterioration. The enrollee 
has had instruction in a home exercise program.  
 
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 an additional 10 physical therapy (PT) visits.
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 this enrollee meets the full criteria for an IRF stay. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says criteria for admission to the acute IRF setting have 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. While the 
medical record supports a need for physical 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: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that you are requesting reconsideration for the denial of 
a SNF admission based on medical necessity. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the SNF services 
requested do not meet the requirements for approval.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for care in a SNF when the four factors 
listed in the Medicare rules section are met. Custodial care is 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 SNF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested SNF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee does not have daily skilled nursing needs that require the specialized 
skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional nurse. The enrollee does have identifiable skilled 
therapy needs that require the specialized skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional therapist; 
however, the enrollee does not require skilled therapy services on a daily basis. The enrollee does not require 
daily skilled nursing and/or skilled therapy on an inpatient basis in a skilled nursing facility (SNF) 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 SNF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute (IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the submitted medical records support the need for 
IRF admission The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the Medicare criteria for 
admission to an IRF. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of the enrollees nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The enrollee 
was  admitted for weakness, depression and hypomagnesemia. Medical problems are stable. There are no 
complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. While 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. There is not a reasonable expectation the enrollee will be able 
to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute 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. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's 
rehabilitation needs do not require an intensive team approach. 
 
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. 
 
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.