Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the deductible for an acute inpatient stay provided from 
August 4, 2023, to August 8, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the deductible for an inpatient stay. You say that you cannot afford this 
deductible, and do not remember having one before. 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. Your 
contract with the Plan says that there is a $300 deductible which applies to inpatient hospital services.  
 
The item or service you asked the Plan to waive the deductible for falls within the inpatient hospital services 
benefit category. The Plan has followed Medicare rules by clearly disclosing in the contract that there is a $300 
deductible which applies to inpatient hospital services. This cost sharing is a contractual obligation that had not 
been met at the time an inpatient stay was received on August 4, 2023, to August 8, 2023. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to waive the deductible for an acute inpatient stay provided from August 4, 
2023, to August 8, 2023.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for home health services provided from November 7, 2022, to 
November 30, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. You say that this should be paid for. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says all of the identified diagnoses are supported in the medical records. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
 
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 services. Our reviewer says that the services at issue in 
this case were not supported by the medical records. Our reviewer found that while the diagnoses in question 
are listed, there is no evidence that the diagnoses were actually present, treated by home health, or affected the 
course of the home health services. As such, the billing of D64.9 and I50.32 as secondary diagnoses is not 
supported. 
 
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 services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pay for home health services provided from November 7, 2022, to November 30, 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 admission is medically necessary for the enrollee. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the records do not show the enrollee has complex rehabilitation 
needs which necessitate a rehabilitation physician or intensive team for care. 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 the enrollee's 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 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 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 SNF care is medically necessary for the enrollee. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not have skilled therapy or nursing needs. 
 
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 from a nursing perspective, the enrollee received oral medications and intravenous 
antibiotics in the hospital.  The enrollee had stable vital signs. The enrollee received physical therapy and 
occupational therapy. The enrollee was at a standby assist to contact guard assist level with functional mobility 
including gait to 100 feet x 2. There are identifiable skilled nursing service needs. There are no identifiable 
skilled therapy service needs. The enrollee does not require skilled nursing or therapy services on a daily 
basis. The enrollee does not meet severity of illness or intensity of service criteria for an inpatient basis in a 
skilled nursing facility 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve the Life2000 system. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the system. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says that this does not meet the requirements for approval. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that if there are no specific coverage rules for an item 
or service, then that item or service will be covered when it is 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 the system. Our reviewer says that the 
requested services are considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer 
found that the enrollee has been on, and is using the L2000 home ventilator already, with good results in 
symptom management. Hence, the enrollee is already using the device, it would be substandard care to 
discontinue therapy at this time. Continued use of the Life2000 is indicated. 
 
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 system have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-
approve the Life2000 system.  
 
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 are appealing with supporting records. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the request 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 does not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The enrollee 
was admitted for lumbar spine surgery. 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a home ventilator. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the home ventilator. You say that the medical records provided support the 
need for the requested home ventilator  The Plan denied your request. The Plan says a home ventilator is not 
medically necessary for the enrollee because their needs can be met with an alternative device such as a BiPAP 
device with average volume-assured pressure support (AVAPS).  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 the home ventilator. Our reviewer says 
that the home ventilator is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has a diagnosis 
of COPD, although the records do not include pulmonary function testing, and the enrollee is a never-smoker. 
The enrollee also has obstructive sleep apnea, obesity hypoventilation syndrome, and congestive heart failure, 
and is on chronic narcotics for chronic pain. The enrollee was recently hospitalized for exacerbation of COPD 
and congestive heart failure. An arterial blood gas was consistent with acute on chronic hyper carbic respiratory 
failure. The enrollee was discharged on a home ventilator, without prior approval in November 2023. The 
enrollee may benefit from BiPAP during sleep as an outpatient. If there is significant airways obstruction, a 
volume assurance mode may be beneficial, which can be provided via BiPAP. Medicare does not cover a home 
ventilator when used at settings that can be provided iwth 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 a home ventilator.
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 the enrollee documentation was reviewed 
and she has not trialed nor failed bilevel positive airway pressure (BIPAP) therapy and this should be attempted 
prior to escalation to a home ventilator. The enrollee documentation does not support the initiation of a home 
ventilator. Hence, no indication at this time for home ventilator. 
 
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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the implantation of a hemodynamic monitor (33289). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve CardioMEMS pulmonary pressure sensor implantation. You say that that 
the procedure is medically reasonable and necessary for the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says the CardioMEMS pulmonary pressure sensor implantation 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 CardioMEMS pulmonary pressure 
sensor implantation. Our reviewer says that the CardioMEMS pulmonary pressure sensor implantation is not 
medically necessary.  Our physician reviewer found that there remains a dearth of randomized blinded clinical 
studies long-term clinical outcomes establishing the value of CardioMEMS in patient management. As a result, 
at this time the CardioMEMS system would not be considered medically appropriate and necessary in the 
patient's clinical management. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of CardioMEMS pulmonary pressure sensor implantation have not been met. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the CardioMEMS pulmonary pressure sensor 
implantation.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the spine. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the MRI. You say that this is needed for acute right sided low back with 
sciatica. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that MRIs 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 the MRI. Our reviewer says that the 
requested MRI is not medically reasonable or necessary. Our physician reviewer found that there is no six-
week trial of physical therapy for back pain. There are no red flags for MRI of the spine. 
 
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 MRI have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the spine.
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 will benefit from acute rehabilitation to 
optimize their level of function prior to returning home. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an IRF 
admission is not medically necessary, and the care the enrollee needs can be safely rendered 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 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: 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 not mobile and have wounds on your foot. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the stay is not medically necessary based on IRF 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 you do 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 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 had surgery on your spine on December 26, 
2023, and need physical therapy. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an IRF admission 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 enrollee's medical complexity does not require an acute hospital inpatient stay 
with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The enrollee does not require an intensive 
rehabilitation therapy, and it is unclear if they would tolerate this. There is not a reasonable expectation that 
this enrollee will be able to benefit from the intensive rehabilitation 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a power operated vehicle, group 1 standard, patient 
weight capacity up to and including 300 pounds (K0800). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a power wheelchair. You say that you struggle to walk, and you have to use 
a cane. You also say you struggle with falling often and that the scooter is necessary for you to be able to get 
around. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you would not be able to use the scooter in your 
apartment but will use it when you go out. The notes from the doctor's office found no neurological deficits. 
 
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 a power wheelchair. Our reviewer says 
that the service is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found per NCD 280.3; you do not require 
the device to complete self-care 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 a power wheelchair have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a power operated vehicle, group 1 standard, patient weight capacity up to and 
including 300 pounds (K0800).