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 these services are medically necessary for the 
enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says these services are 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 can be provided 
in a lower level of care and does not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach 
to rehabilitation care. The enrollee requires treatment by multiple therapies. There is documentation that there 
is 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, but the services required can be provided 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: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve treatment with Euflexxa (J7323). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Euflexxa. You say that Euflexxa is a medical necessity for the enrollee. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says Euflexxa has been prescribed for an off-label, not medically accepted 
use. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare may pay for unlabeled uses for FDA-
approved drugs if they are medically accepted as safe and effective or appropriate for the particular use.  
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve Euflexxa. Our reviewer says that 
treatment with Euflexxa is not medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found 
that the requested use of Euflexxa is not FDA-approved for the enrollees diagnosis. There is insufficient 
support in the major drug compendia or by clinical research that appears in a Medicare-approved medical 
journal for the use of Euflexxa in the treatment of bilateral primary osteoarthritis of the hips.  
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Euflexxa have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve treatment with Euflexxa (J7323).
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Restasis. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Restasis. You say that the medication is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the medication is not covered as a medical benefit under the Plan. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare Part B generally does not pay for self-
administered drugs. The self-administered drugs requested here are not among the types which are covered by 
Medicare Part B. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Restasis.  Benefits for Restasis may be available under Medicare Part D. Contact the Plan that administers Part D benefits 
for further information concerning any benefits and appeal rights.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that admission is medically necessary for the 
enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's care may continue to be provided at the 
current hospital. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that LTACH services are covered if they are medically 
necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee. 
 
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 LTACH services. Our reviewer says 
that the requested LTACH care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee does not meet criteria for LTACH at this time and according to plan will 
continue to receive coverage in current 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 the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the enrollee needs this level of care.  The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's needs can be safely managed at the current facility until 
they are more stable for transfer to another level of care. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that LTACH services are covered if they are medically 
necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee. 
 
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 LTACH services. Our reviewer says 
that the requested LTACH care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found there are no services that would be offered at the LTACH that are not available at the 
current 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 the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) 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 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 can be provided 
in a lower level of care and does not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach 
to rehabilitation care. While the enrollee requires treatment by multiple therapies, including physical therapy 
and occupational therapy, this can be provided in a lower level of care. There is documentation that there is 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, but the services required can be provided 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve polysomnography. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve polysomnography. You say that this is necessary for possible needs of a 
continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machine. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that that the 
sleep study can be done in a home setting and does not require the resources of an attended sleep lab. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that facility-based sleep studies are covered under certain 
circumstances. 
 
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 polysomnography. Our reviewer says 
that this is medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee requires the sleep study in order to 
determine is the current CPAP setup is appropriate. The enrollee also needs a nerve stimulator evaluation, 
which cannot be done at 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 polysomnography have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to 
pre-approve polysomnography.  
 
  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 enrollee needs this care to regain independence. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says medical records do not support the need for an IRF admission and, 
the enrollee needs can be provided at another setting.  
 
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 enrollees medical problems are stable and there are no complex nursing or 
rehabilitation needs. 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Dignity Deluxe toilet lift (E0172, E1399). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a raised toilet seat. You say that you are currently experiencing difficulty 
getting up from the toilet. You live by yourself and is very independent and your goal is to stay in your home. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this item is not a covered benefit. 
 
The Plan covers all items that Medicare covers. Medicare rules state that raised toilet seats are not covered 
because they are not primarily medical in nature.  
 
While a raised toilet seat may be appropriate for K. Barney, neither the Plan nor Medicare offers coverage of 
this item. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Dignity Deluxe toilet lift 
(E0172, E1399).
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Myopro 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 there is not enough medical evidence that shows this device is reasonable and necessary 
to improve function of the left arm. 
 
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 
enrollee'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 
patient. 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 orthotic device.
Appeal type: Testing
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 95937 rendered on May 25, 2023. 
 
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 Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 95937 26 (1 unit) remains 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 95937 is "Neuromuscular junction testing (repetitive 
stimulation, paired stimuli), each nerve, any 1 method." 
 
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 the procedure report documents 
train of four testing. It is not appropriate to bill separately for train-of-four (TOF) monitoring. The guidelines have clearly stated that CPT code 95937 is not appropriate for this procedure, nor may train of four monitoring 
be billed with an unlisted code. 
 
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 procedure code 95937 rendered on May 25, 2023.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Feraheme. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Feraheme. 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 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 Feraheme. Our reviewer says that the 
services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee does not have an FDA-
approved indication to use this particular iron product. As there is insufficient evidence to support Feraheme 
for this enrollee's clinical background, the documentation does not sufficiently support that the Feraheme is 
medically reasonable and necessary or safe and effective 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 Feraheme have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Feraheme.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for evaluation and management services (procedure code 99233) 
rendered on May 4, 2023. 
 
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 the documents do not support this level of care. 
 
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 99233 is "Subsequent hospital inpatient or observation 
care, per day, for the evaluation and management of a patient, which requires a medically appropriate history 
and/or examination and high level of medical decision making. When using total time on the date of the 
encounter for code selection, 50 minutes must be met or exceeded." 
 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 the documentation for 5/4/2023 
appears to be a partial discharge note, for a discharge on 5/4/2023 that did not occur.  The documentation does 
not contain a physical examination and does not contain medical decision aiming of high complexity. As such, 
the billing of CPT 99233 for 5/4/2023 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 evaluation and management services (procedure code 99233) rendered on May 4, 2023.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a definitive drug test. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a definitive drug test. 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 follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that criteria to establish medical necessity for drug testing 
must be based on patient-specific elements identified during the clinical assessment, and documented by the 
clinician in the patients medical record and minimally include certain elements. 
 
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 definitive drug test. Our reviewer says 
that the services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the provided records did not 
describe why 15+ drug classes were needed to be tested when much fewer applied to this enrollee. Also, there 
was no presumptive screening provided that showed an unexpected result or documentation of behavior 
suspicious of drug abuse/misuse to justify a comprehensive definitive drug testing panel. Therefore, the 
enrollee does not meet the LCD criteria for this testing.  
 
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 definitive drug test have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve a definitive drug test.
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 needs IRF services. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the enrollee does 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 the enrollees nursing, medical, and rehabilitation needs does 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, 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 the enrollee will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive 
rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF. Medically necessary care can be provided at 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.