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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an angiogram with revascularization. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the requested services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there is 
no occlusion in the iliac artery.  
 
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 requested services. Our physician 
reviewer found that the description of the symptom details is insufficient to support that the enrollee symptoms 
are vasculogenic in nature. There is no evidence of limb threat. No objective non-invasive perfusion 
information is provided. The recent angiogram demonstrates no significant arterial disease to the level of the 
knees with single run-off via the peroneal artery bilaterally, findings also not consistent with claudication.  The performance of tibial angioplasty for claudication is generally not advisable as the risks may outweigh the 
benefits. The enrollee is documented to have normal pulses.  Based on this information, the services are not 
considered 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 requested services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve an angiogram with revascularization.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayments for the emergency room visit and inpatient 
hospital stay provided from February 18, 2023, to February 23, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayments for the emergency room visit and inpatient hospital stay. You say 
that you were charged the incorrect number of inpatient days, as you were still in the emergency department. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this cost sharing was charged correctly. The rules say a plan must disclose to its enrollees in clear, accurate terms all cost sharing information (such as 
copayments, deductibles and coinsurance). Your contract with the Plan clearly says that you must pay a $95 
copayment for emergency care. Your contract with the Plan also clearly says that you must pay a $210 
copayment per day for days 1-6 of each inpatient hospital stay. Your contract with the Plan also clearly says 
that you must pay a $0 copayment per day for any additional days of the same inpatient hospital stay. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $95 copayment for the emergency room visit. This item/service falls within the 
emergency care benefit category.  
 
The medical records show you were admitted as an inpatient on February 19, 2023. You have also been asked 
to pay a $210 copayment per day for days 1-3 of the inpatient hospital stay. This item/service falls within the 
inpatient hospital stay benefit category. You have not been asked to pay after day three or for the day you were 
discharged. You have been asked to pay a total of $630 for the inpatient hospital stay ($210 copayment per day 
x 3 days = $630).  
 
You have been asked to pay a total of $725 ($95 copayment + $630 copayment = $725). This means that you 
have been asked to pay the correct amount based on your contract with the Plan. This cost sharing is a 
contractual obligation you agreed to pay when you enrolled in the Plan. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to waive the copayments for the emergency room visit and inpatient hospital stay provided from 
February 18, 2023, to February 23, 2023.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the COVID-19 testing kits provided on December 19, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the COVID-19 testing kits. You say that you showed your Medicare card at the 
pharmacy, and they refused to provide you with free over-the-counter (OTC) tests.  The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the service is not a covered benefit. 
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare does not pay for OTC items. Please note, the 
provider must submit the claim to original Medicare. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay 
for the COVID-19 testing kits provided on December 19, 2022.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the enrollee's admission to an LTACH is 
medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee is unstable for transfer to an 
LTACH. Continued stay at acute hospital until the enrollee is stable enough for discharge to a lower level of 
care has not been denied. 
 
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 is receiving appropriate care at the present acute care hospital. The 
enrollee does not require services at the LTACH that are not available at the acute care hospital where the 
enrollee is currently receiving 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 the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve LTACH services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve a ventilator. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a ventilator. You say that the enrollee has been hospitalized multiple times 
for the same issues. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the enrollee has not failed BiPAP. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare health plans must make reasonable and 
diligent efforts to gather and forward to the IRE information regarding its decision to deny coverage or 
payment. 
 
We looked at the file and the rules. In this case, the Plan has sent medical records that are not readable. 
Maximus made several attempts to obtain usable records with no success. The Plan has not made reasonable 
and diligent efforts to gather and forward to us information regarding their decision to deny your request.  
Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-approve a ventilator.  
 
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 three sessions a day treatment it is very important to 
me as I cannot walk. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the Medicare 
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: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you would like reconsideration based on the records 
submitted. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet all the requirements 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 that 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 enrollee may have a need for physical 
therapy 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 an IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve a positron emission tomography (PET) scan of the whole body. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a the PET scan. You say that the services are medically necessary for the 
enrollee to receive the right type of treatment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the services 
requested do not meet the Medicare criteria for approval.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that PET 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 the PET scan. Our reviewer says that 
the service is medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the request meets the rules for coverage. 
Given the findings of the bone scan further testing is needed to determine whether the bone lesions are a 
metastatic disease, which would change the plan of treatment. 
 
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 PET scan have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-
approve a positron emission tomography (PET) scan of the whole body.  
 
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: 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 a SNF admission is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet Medicare guidelines for SNF services. 
 
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 documented skilled nursing or therapy needs. Daily skilled 
services are not required to establish a maintenance program or prevent deterioration of the enrollee's 
condition. The enrollee's care needs 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 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 inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you are requesting reconsideration for the denial of 
an IRF admission based on medical necessity. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request for 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 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: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that admission to the IRF is necessary because the 
enrollee has multiple medical comorbidities as well as home safety concerns. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says admission to an IRF 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 that 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 enrollee may have a need for physical 
therapy 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 an IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a heat pad with pump (E0217). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the requested services. You say that the request will cut your recovery time 
in half. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request is not covered. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that items and services that are not medically 
necessary are not covered.  
 
We looked at the file, and Medicare rules. The requested pump is not considered medically necessary. 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 a heat pad with pump (E0217).
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve ultrasound guided radiation therapy. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve ultrasound guided radiation therapy. You say that Medicare covers image-
guided superficial radiotherapy, including ultrasound guidance. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 
that it is not a covered benefit. 
 
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 ultrasound guided radiation therapy. 
Our reviewer says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in 
this case. Our physician reviewer found using ultrasound on a daily basis is not unreasonable to offer but is not 
necessary. Using daily image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) for a technology for which the need has not 
been established is not necessary. This would not be furnished in accordance with accepted standards of 
medical practice. We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of ultrasound guided radiation therapy have not been met. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan does not have to pre-approve ultrasound guided radiation therapy.
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 inpatient 
rehabilitation as 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. 
 
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 LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the enrollee is clearly improving 
clinically yet still requires high oxygen demands which cannot be achieved at the current assisted living 
facility. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says admission to an LTACH is not medically necessary.  
 
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 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 Plan. The 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 LTACH services.