Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve 80 additional trips. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve additional trips. You say that you need additional trips for dialysis 
appointments. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says routine transportation benefits beyond the 100 
allotted one-way trips are not covered. 
 Medicare does not cover transport in a vehicle that is not an ambulance. However, the Plan offers a 
transportation benefit that exceeds Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plans coverage rules apply in this 
case. The Plan covers a maximum of up to 100 one-way trips per year.  
 
We looked at your request, the records in the case file, and the rules. Based on this information, we decided 
that you have or will have exhausted the Plan maximum benefit for coverage of routine transportation. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve 80 additional trips.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an implantable loop recorder. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the requested services. You say that the recorder is the most effective device 
to detect atrial fibrillation. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's symptoms are too 
infrequent to be detected by an external monitor.  
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that electrocardiographic services are only covered under 
certain medical indications. 
 
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 requested services. Our physician 
reviewer found that the enrollee has no history of atrial fibrillation, nor were any significant cardiac 
arrhythmias noted on EKG monitoring. Continuous monitoring for atrial fibrillation with an ILR is not superior 
to usual care in reducing stroke or systemic embolism among those at high risk of stroke but without a known 
prior history of atrial fibrillation. At this time, insertion of an ILR would not be considered medically 
appropriate and necessary in this enrollees 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 the requested services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve an implantable loop recorder.
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 can't walk, and you need rehabilitation where 
there are doctors on site to see why this is occurring. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the IRF 
services you are requesting do not meet the requirements for approval.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found that your medical problems are stable, and there are no complex nursing or 
rehabilitation needs. While the medical record supports a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there 
is no documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a 
different level of care. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Durolane. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve Durolane. You say that since you are on blood thinners and take Warfrain 
daily you would not be a good candidate for a knee replacement. You say that you are still a very active person 
and would like to be able to do things without being in pain. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that 
the 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 Durolane. Our reviewer says that 
Durolane is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that you have osteoarthritis of the right 
knee, and your provider has recommended viscosupplementation therapy with Durloane. However, you have 
not tried and failed the Plan's required drugs Euflexxa or Synvisc. Also, the documentation does not outline 
contraindications or that the Plan's additional required drugs would likely be less effective or likely have 
adverse effects to you. Therefore, without the support of the documentation Durolane is not approved. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Durolane have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Durolane.
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 intensive rehab to return home 
with full functional ability. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the IRF services you are requesting do 
not meet the requirements for approval. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs 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. Medically necessary 
care can be provided in a different level of care. 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. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Intracept procedure (64628, 64629).  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the Intracept procedure. You say that the enrollee meets Food and Drug 
Administration (FDA) indications for use. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says medical studies haven't 
proven this service/item is helpful for the treatment of the enrollee's health problem.  
 
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 Intracept procedure. Our reviewer 
says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found that there is no magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showing only modic changes 
without facet degenerative joint disease (DJD) or foraminal stenosis. The cause of back pain is not clear. Thus, 
this procedure is not considered medically reasonable and necessary at this time.  
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 Intracept procedure have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve the Intracept procedure (64628, 64629).
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health services provided from August 14, 2022, to 
September 12, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the home health services. 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 June 15, 2022. The NOA was not received by the Plan until December 6, 
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 the home health services 
provided from August 14, 2022, to September 12, 2022.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an inpatient psychiatric hospital admission from July 
14, 2023, forward.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a continued inpatient psychiatric hospital admission. You say that the 
enrollee would be a danger to self if discharged without a safe and supportive environment. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says continued stay at the psychiatric inpatient hospitalization level of care for this 
admission is not medically necessary beginning July 14, 2023.   
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that inpatient psychiatric services may be covered if the 
patient requires active treatment.  
 
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 continued inpatient psychiatric 
hospital admission. Our reviewer says that the enrollee did not appear to require inpatient mental health 
treatment beyond the date in question. The enrollee was not a danger to self or others and does not have 
auditory or visual hallucinations. It did not appear that active treatment was taking place beyond the date in 
question. It did not appear that the services were reasonably expected to improve the enrollees condition or for 
the purpose of diagnosis beyond the date in question. It did appear that the records were supervised and 
evaluated by a physician. Based upon review the records provided for the admission, the enrollee does not meet 
the criteria for July 14, 2023, forward. The enrollee was cooperative/compliant with treatment while not 
showing any threats the safety. 
 
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 continued inpatient psychiatric hospital admission have not been met. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an inpatient psychiatric hospital admission 
from July 14, 2023, forward.
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's care cannot be 
accomplished at a lower level of care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee is not medically 
stable.  
 
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 physician 
reviewer found that the enrollee has a history of traumatic brain injury with gastric tube, right-sided paralysis, 
diabetes, and seizure disorder. The enrollee presented from the nursing home with abdominal distension and 
vomiting. He was treated for sepsis found to have bacterial myositis, now on treatment with intravenous 
daptomycin. The enrollee is receiving appropriate care in his current acute care setting as provided by the Plan. 
There is no clear documentation that the requested LTACH services are medically necessary. 
 We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the 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: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code S9328 billed for date of service January 29, 
2023, to February 25, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code S9328. You say that the enrollee was referred to you by a 
participating provider. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the billed code is invalid for Medicare 
purposes.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate procedure code.  
We find that procedure code S9328 has a Status Indicator of I on the Physician Fee Schedule. This means that 
procedure code S9328 is not valid for Medicare purposes. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare 
rules for coverage of procedure code S9328 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pay for procedure code S9328 billed for date of service January 29, 2023, to February 25, 2023.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the RhinAer procedure. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the RhinAer procedure. You say that the RhinAer procedure is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested RhinAer procedure is not medically 
necessary  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that items and services that are not medically 
necessary are not covered.  
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the RhinAer procedure. Our reviewer 
says that the requested RhinAer procedure is not considered medically reasonable and necessary. Our physician 
reviewer found that the enrollee has chronic nonallergic rhinitis. There is insufficient literature to support the 
safety and efficacy of the requested procedure for the enrollee's clinical condition at this time. 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 RhinAer procedure have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve the RhinAer procedure.
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 services are medically necessary. 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 enrollee does not require the intensity of services provided at an IRF. The 
enrollee is not shown to require fifteen hours per week of rehabilitative services and regular physician 
evaluation. The enrollees care needs can be met 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: 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 services are medically necessary for 
the enrollee's complex medical needs. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee is receiving 
appropriate inpatient acute care and is currently unstable for transfer to an LTACH.  
 
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 appears to be improving but is still unstable and requires additional acute 
care services that can safely be performed at the current facility until more stable and appropriate for a lower 
level of care soon. The enrollee does not require services at the LTACH that are not already available at the 
current facility.  
 
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 records provided support medical 
necessity. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the LTACH services requested do not meet the 
requirements for approval. 
 
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 require services at the LTACH that are not available at the 
acute care hospital where they are currently receiving care. All medically necessary care is being provided in 
the current acute care setting. There are no services available at the LTACH that the enrollee requires that are 
not available at the health care setting being offered by the health plan. The health plan has approved ongoing 
care in the current acute care setting. The requested LTACH services are not medically necessary, reasonable, 
and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee and able to be furnished safely and effectively 
only on an inpatient basis. 
 
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 services are medically necessary for 
you due to your infection of your foot, and you need to get better. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 
you are receiving the appropriate inpatient acute care and do not require transfer to a LTACH.  
 
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 that you appear to be currently stable and improving and should only require short-
term additional acute care services that can safely be performed at the current facility until more appropriate for 
a lower level of care soon. You do not require services at the LTACH that are not already available at the 
current facility.  
 
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.