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 the services are medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the 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 clinical documentation shows that the enrollee requires ongoing physical and 
occupational therapy however the rehab preadmission screen states that patient may require skilled nursing 
facility services at discharge. The records do not show that the enrollee would significantly benefit from an IRF 
stay.  
 
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 IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you are currently in the hospital and will benefit 
from inpatient rehabilitation to regain your independence with daily activities. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says you have no acute medical needs that require direct medical doctor oversight. You may be 
eligible for a lower level of care, such as a skilled nursing unit, skilled nursing facility, an outpatient 
rehabilitation facility, or at home with home health 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 your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not require an 
acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. You were admitted for a 
femur fracture after a fall.  Medical problems are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. 
While the medical records support a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documented 
need for intensive rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different level of care. 
There is not a reasonable expectation 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 IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee needs the rehabilitation so they can 
regain their previous level of function. 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 that the enrollee does not have any active medical comorbidities or complex 
functional impairments. The enrollees needs do 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 IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee requires more intensive therapy to regain 
their strength. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that 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 found to be medically reasonable and necessary for this enrollee. Our physician reviewer 
found that the enrollee's condition is complex and fragile, particularly in the setting of their advanced age and 
repetitive hospitalizations curtailing their normal daily mobility. Also, it is expected that the enrollee will 
participate in and benefit from services to include at minimum PT, OT, physician oversight of polypharmacy, 
cardiovascular and case manager coordination of any additional services that might be needed to ensure they 
can make a sustainable return to their current living environment. 
 
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 been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-approve 
IRF admission and services.  
 
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 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 record indicates that the enrollee has ongoing acute medical issues and still 
requires acute care services. The enrollee continues to receive acute care services, and these have not been 
denied.  The medical record does not indicate that the enrollee requires services that they are not currently 
receiving but that would be available at the LTACH 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: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has 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 requires continued acute 
care to prevent further complications. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the enrollee is receiving 
appropriate in-patient acute and does not require 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 considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found that the enrollee has multiple complex medical problems requiring complex treatment and is 
now medically stable for transfer to an LTACH. Considering the extent of the enrollee's condition, the 
anticipated length of stay is at least 25 days. 
 
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 been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to 
pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services.  
 
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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a surgical boot (L3260). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the surgical boot. You say that this boot is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says this item is not a covered benefit. 
 
Medicare rules state that supportive devices for the feet (such as orthotics) are only covered for patients with 
diabetic foot disease or for patients who wear a leg brace. The Plan follows these same rules. The rules also say 
orthopedic footwear billed using code L3260 will be denied as noncovered.   
 
The records show that you do not suffer from diabetic foot disease, and you do not wear a leg brace. Per 
Medicare, code L3260 is not covered. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a 
surgical boot (L3260).
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a group 3 standard power wheelchair with multiple 
power options (K0861), electronic connection (E2311), harness (E2313), expandable controller (E2377), and 
additional items and accessories (codes E0955, E1007, E1012, E1028, E2361, E2602, E2620, K0040, and 
K0108). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a group 3 standard power wheelchair with multiple power options, 
electronic connection, harness, expandable controller, and additional items and accessories. You say that a 
power wheelchair would greatly improve your quality of life. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
enrollee does not have medical need for multiple power options included with a K0861 group 3 power 
wheelchair. The Plan also says an electronic connection, harness, expandable controller cannot be covered as it 
is not medically necessary to control the three requested power options through the joystick (drive interface). 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that a power mobility device (PMD) will not be covered if 
the patient does not have mobility deficit that impairs their participation in Mobility-Related Activities of Daily 
Living (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 group 3 standard power wheelchair 
with multiple power options, electronic connection, harness, expandable controller, and additional items and 
accessories. Our reviewer says that you do not meet the criteria for coverage. Our physician reviewer found 
you have used a manual wheelchair for over a year, and the records state the chair is 3 years old. Our reviewer 
also found that you have intact skin, do not have high risk for skin breakdown, use a catheter intermittently, 
have spasticity or require an alternative means of managing power drive. 
 
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 group 3 standard power wheelchair with multiple power options, electronic 
connection, harness, expandable controller, and additional items and accessories have not been met. Therefore, 
we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a group 3 standard power wheelchair with multiple 
power options (K0861), electronic connection (E2311), harness (E2313), expandable controller (E2377), and 
additional items and accessories (codes E0955, E1007, E1012, E1028, E2361, E2602, E2620, K0040, and 
K0108).
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. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not 
meet the requirements. Services needed may be provided safely in a lower level of care. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for care in a SNF when the four factors 
listed in the Medicare rules section are met. Custodial care is not covered. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve SNF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested SNF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee does not have daily skilled nursing needs that require the specialized 
skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional nurse. The enrollee does not have daily skilled therapy 
needs that require the specialized skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional therapist. The 
enrollee does not require daily skilled nursing and/or skilled therapy on an inpatient basis in a skilled nursing 
facility (SNF) setting. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of SNF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee will clearly benefit from acute 
rehabilitation to optimize her level of functioning prior to returning home. You also say that the enrollee has a 
serious life threatening constellation of acute medical problems that have left her at a functional status below 
his baseline. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says based on Medicare guidelines, the IRF services 
requested 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 do not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The enrollee 
was admitted for nonoperative management of pelvic fractures after a fall. Medical problems are stable. There 
are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. While the medical records support a need for physical and/or 
occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. Medically necessary 
care can be provided in a different level of care. There is not a reasonable expectation 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: 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 record indicates that the enrollee has ongoing acute medical issues and still 
requires acute care services. The enrollee continues to receive acute care services, and these have not been 
denied. The medical record does not indicate that the enrollee requires services that they are not currently 
receiving but that would be available at the LTACH 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 waive the copayment for inpatient hospital care provided on August 
11, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for inpatient hospital care. You say that you disagree with the 
copayment. 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 $295 
copayment per day for days 1- for inpatient hospital care.  
 
You have been asked to pay a $295 copayment per day for days 1- for inpatient hospital care. The total amount 
you are being asked to pay is $885 ($295 x 3 days = $885). This item/service falls within the inpatient hospital 
care benefit category. 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 copayment for inpatient hospital care provided 
on August 11, 2022.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve additional routine transportation trips. 
 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve the additional trips. You say that you need the additional rides for your 
behavioral health services. You also say that you suffer from severe depression,  receive therapy twice a week 
and you have run out of rides. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you have used all 60 of the allotted 
number of trips available under the health plan. 
 
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 60 trips per year.  
 
We looked at your request, the records in the case file, and the rules. You asked the Plan to pre-approve 
additional transportation trips for your behavioral appointments. Based on this information, we decided that 
you have exhausted the Plan maximum benefit for coverage of routine transportation. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan does not have to pre-approve additional routine transportation trips.
Appeal type: Outpatient Mental Health
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for psychotherapy provided on February 22, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the psychotherapy. You say that the services were medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says that the services of CPs are not covered if the service is otherwise excluded 
from Medicare coverage even though a clinical psychologist is authorized by State law to perform them. 
 
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. 
 
The Plan has not made reasonable and diligent efforts to gather and forward to us information regarding their 
decision to deny your request. The Plan has not provided a Medicare rule or a Plan rule to substantiate their 
denial that a clinical psychologist is excluded from rendering psychotherapy services. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan has to pay for psychotherapy provided on February 22, 2023.  
 
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.