Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the telehealth services provided on December 06, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the telehealth services. You say that you are requesting reconsideration of the 
denied claim. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that unauthorized, out-of-network care is not 
covered. 
 
Medicare rules say that plans can require enrollees to get care from network providers. The contract with the 
Plan says that the Plan has to pay for care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving emergencies, 
out of area urgent care and pre-approved care.  
The provider of the item(s)/service(s) at issue in this appeal is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan 
did not pre-approve the item(s)/service(s) at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay 
for the item(s)/service(s). Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the telehealth services 
provided on December 06, 2022.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve home health physical therapy visits (G0299). 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve home health services. You say that the services are necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the services are not medically necessary.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that home health care services may be covered if it is 
medically necessary for the enrollee to receive skilled nursing or therapy. A doctor must certify the need for 
home health care services. 
 
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 home health services. Our reviewer 
says that the services are not medically reasonable and necessary. Our physician reviewer found you do not 
have documented home health physical therapy needs. You are functioning at a level commiserate with a lower 
level of care.  As such, the requested home health physical therapy is not medically necessary or reasonable. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of home health services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve home health physical therapy visits (G0299).
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Intracept intraosseous nerve ablation system. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the services. You say that this is truly the only solution. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says there have been no specific studies done to identify the basivertebral nerve as the 
cause of the pain. 
 
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 services. Our reviewer says that the 
requested 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, and no foraminal 
stenosis or facet degenerative joint disease. The cause of the back pain is not clear. 
 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 services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve the Intracept intraosseous nerve ablation system.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has 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 for the 
enrollee's complex medical needs.  The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that 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 found to be medically reasonable and necessary for this enrollee. Our physician reviewer 
found the clinical documentation shows that the enrollee has good participation in therapy evaluations with 
improvement in mobility and self-care tasks. The evaluating therapists recommend an intense therapy regimen. 
The enrollee would be expected to tolerate and significantly benefit from an intensive rehabilitation regimen. 
IRF criteria met. 
 
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 
acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve transcatheter implantation of wireless pulmonary artery 
pressure sensor (CardioMEMS) (33289). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve CardioMEMS. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the requested service is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that items and services that are not medically 
necessary are not covered.  
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve CardioMEMS. Our reviewer says that 
there remains a dearth of randomized, blinded clinical studies examining long-term clinical outcomes 
establishing the value of CardioMEMS in patient management. Our physician reviewer found at this time, the 
CardioMEMS system 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 CardioMEMS have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve transcatheter implantation of wireless pulmonary artery pressure sensor (CardioMEMS) 
(33289).
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 an expedited reconsideration as 
the enrollee currently meets IRF admission criteria. 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 complexity of the enrollees nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The enrollee 
continues to have a need for skilled therapy with ongoing safety concerns and a potential for functional 
improvement however, the documentation doesnt support that they would meet criteria for admission to an 
acute inpatient rehabilitation facility. The enrollee can receive further services 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 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's condition does not meet Medicare 
guidelines 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: ER
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for emergency room services provided on 
March 09, 2023, to March 11, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for emergency room services. You say that you want to appeal the 
amount being charged. 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 $90 
copayment for emergency care. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $90 copayment for emergency room services. This item/service falls within the 
emergency 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 emergency room services 
provided on March 09, 2023, to March 11, 2023.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Intracept procedure (64628). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the Intracept procedure. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says this 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 Intracept procedure. Our reviewer 
says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found there is no magnetic resonance imaging showing only modic changes without facet 
degenerative joint disease or foraminal stenosis. The cause of back pain is not clear. 
 
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).
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a home visit provided on February 17, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for a home visit. You say that the provider was not responsible for obtaining 
authorization. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that unauthorized, out-of-network care is not 
covered. 
 
Medicare rules say that plans can require enrollees to get care from network providers. The contract with the 
Plan says that the Plan has to pay for care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving emergencies, 
out of area urgent care and pre-approved care.  
The provider of the item(s)/service(s) at issue in this appeal is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan 
did not pre-approve the item(s)/service(s) at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay 
for the item(s)/service(s). Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a home visit provided on 
February 17, 2023.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you are appealing this denial. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the denial of IRF care is correct. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found you are mildly impaired following an acute illness. You are functioning near home 
care level. The complexity of intensive rehabilitation services are not needed. 
 
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: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for podiatry services provided on January 10, 2023, by an out-
of-network (OON) provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for podiatry services. You say that authorization is not required for this service. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says this service is not covered out-of-network. 
 Medicare rules say that plans can require enrollees to get care from network providers. The contract with the 
Plan says that the Plan has to pay for care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving emergencies, 
out of area urgent care and pre-approved care. 
 
The requested provider in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan had network providers 
available who could have provided the items/services at issue in this appeal. The Plan did not pre-approve the 
item/service at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay for these items/services. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for podiatry services provided on January 10, 2023, 
by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve SNF care. 
  You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that you require an extended SNF stay due to a recent 
surgical procedure. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the continued SNF admission request does not 
meet the requirements for approval. 
 
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 you do not have daily skilled nursing needs that require the specialized skill, 
knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional nurse. You do not have daily skilled therapy needs that 
require the specialized skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional therapist. You do not require 
daily skilled nursing or skilled therapy on an inpatient basis in a 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 SNF care.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve electronic brachytherapy (EB) (0394T, 77280, 77290). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve electronic brachytherapy. You say that the requested service is medically 
necessary for the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there is no good data to support the 
safety or use of EB for the enrollees skin cancer. EB is not generally accepted for the enrollees condition. 
 
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 electronic brachytherapy. Our reviewer 
says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee has a diagnosis of basal cell carcinoma of the left nasal ala. Provided 
medical records and review of the current peer-reviewed medical literature do not document that use of the 
electronic brachytherapy has been shown in controlled studies in a CMS-approved journal to result in long term 
health benefits in enrollees with basal cell carcinoma. As summarized by the National Comprehensive Cancer 
Network (NCCN): "There are insufficient long-term efficacy and safety data to support the routine use of 
electronic surface brachytherapy for basal cell skin cancer." 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of electronic brachytherapy have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve electronic brachytherapy (EB) (0394T, 77280, 77290).
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a genicular nerve block. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a genicular nerve block. You say that a genicular nerve block is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says a genicular nerve block 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 a genicular nerve block. Our reviewer 
says that the requested genicular nerve block is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. 
Our physician reviewer found that this therapy is the subject of ongoing clinical trials and is considered 
experimental at this time. Therefore, the request is deemed not medically reasonable and 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 a genicular nerve block have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve a genicular nerve block.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve paravertebral facet joint injections (64490, 64491). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the injections. You say that the clinical literature supports the safety and 
efficacy of the procedure. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the criteria only allow up to two spinal 
levels to be treated at one time. 
 
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 injections. Our reviewer says that 
the requested services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found that detailed documentation is not evident regarding facet-mediated pain on the provided exam. 
Additionally, without examination findings, cervical radiculopathy/neurological deficits cannot be ruled out. 
The provided cervical MRI did not corroborate significant facet pathology at the requested injection levels. 
There is limited published, large-scale, long-term peer-reviewed literature that shows this request to be an 
effective and/or safe treatment for the noted pathology. Therefore, the requested paravertebral facet joint 
injections are not medically reasonable or 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 injections have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve paravertebral facet joint injections (64490, 64491).