Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a MyoPro powered arm brace from Myomo (L8702). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the MyoPro brace. You say that the MyoPro is a custom-fabricated orthosis 
designed to provide functional restoration of strength and range of motion to a neurologically impaired upper 
extremity. The MyoPro is safe, effective and medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 
there are not enough studies to show MyoPro is safe and effective to help recovery from a disability.  
 
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 MyoPro brace. 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 history of stroke, but the location and impairment are not 
documented. There was no electromyogram (EMG) provided for review and no full description of the deficits. Also, the requested device is not recommended per American Heart Association as a daily adjunct for self-care 
and has not been shown to reliably impact self-care including bathing, dressing and toileting and eating in 
studies.  
 
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 MyoPro brace have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a MyoPro powered arm brace from Myomo (L8702).
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that the enrollee cannot be safely transferred home due 
to their current functionality and medical needs and requires additional inpatient treatment. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says that the SNF services requested do 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 considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee has daily skilled nursing needs that require the specialized skill, 
knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional nurse. The enrollee has daily skilled therapy needs that 
require the specialized skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional therapist. The enrollee requires 
daily skilled nursing and 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 been met. The Plan must continue coverage for the SNF skilled 
service until such time as the enrollee no longer needs the service and proper notice has been issued, or the 
100-day Medicare benefit is exhausted. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-approve skilled nursing 
facility (SNF) care.  
 
 
 If the Plan does not agree with our decision, they can ask us to open a case again. We only open a case again 
if we believe there was a mistake or if there is new information to review. The Plan has to show us the mistake 
and/or send us the new information. This does not happen often. If we decide to open the case again, we will 
send you a letter.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee requires more intensive rehab to 
decrease readmission to acute care and minimize risk for falls that may result to a more sever injury. You say 
that the enrollee is at high risk for falling and sustaining an injury that will require re-hospitalization. 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 the enrollee's medical complexity does not require an acute hospital inpatient stay 
with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The enrollee does not require an intensive 
rehabilitation therapy, and it is unclear if they would tolerate. There is not a reasonable expectation that this 
enrollee will be able to benefit from the intensive rehabilitation 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: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 70450 billed for date of service August 16, 
2023. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 70450. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says payment for 
code 70450 is bundled into payment for code 70496. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate CPT code. In this case, we have confirmed that code 70450 
is a column II code to column I code 70496. This claim has not been billed with an appropriate modifier to 
bypass the edit. Based on the claim submitted, Medicare billing criteria have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 70450 billed for date of service August 16, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code S9083 billed for date of service July 29, 
2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code S9083. You say that this should be paid for. 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 S9083 has a Status Indicator of I on the Physician Fee Schedule. This means that procedure code S9083 is not valid for Medicare purposes. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare 
rules for coverage of procedure code S9083 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pay for procedure code S9083 billed for date of service July 29, 2023.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for the eye examination provided on August 5, 
2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for the eye examination provided on August 5, 2023.. You say that 
your benefit includes a free annual vision exam. You say you only wanted to prescription exam and nothing 
extra. 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 $40 
copayment for each Medicare-covered exam to treat an eye condition.  
 
You have been asked to pay a $40 copayment for the eye examination provided on August 5, 2023. The eye 
examination falls within the vision care benefit category. The record shows the eye examination was medical in nature. 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 the eye examination provided on August 5, 
2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve TMS. You say that you are requesting reconsideration for the denied claim. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you do not meet the requirements for approval. 
 
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 TMS. 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 documentation of you undergoing electroconvulsive therapy. There is no diagnosis 
of major depressive disorder and is PHQ 9 score was 6 or 7. The FDA has not approved the use of Transcranial 
Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) treatment for depression related to tinnitus and is therefore considered 
investigational or experimental. We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of TMS have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pre-approve Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS).
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 is not able to stand or walk and needs 
assistance getting out of bed. 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 patient's nursing, medical and rehabilitation can be 
provided in a lower level of care and does not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary 
approach to rehabilitation care. The patient requires treatment by multiple therapies, including physical therapy 
and occupational therapy, but this can be provided in a lower level of care. There is documentation that there is 
a reasonable expectation that this patient will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive 
rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF, but the services required can be provided at a lower level of 
care.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve foot orthotics.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve foot orthotics. You say that having these inserts could prevent surgery. 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.   
 
Records show that you do not suffer from diabetic foot disease, and you do not wear a leg brace. Although 
orthotics may be appropriate for you, neither Medicare nor the Plan provides coverage of orthotics for your 
condition. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve foot orthotics.
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 denied 
claim. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does 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 patient was 
admitted for a fall and intraparenchymal brain hemorrhage. Medical problems are stable. There are no complex 
nursing or rehabilitation needs.  
 
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 this 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve. a Freestyle Libre 3 continuous glucose monitor (CGM). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve. a CGM. You say that the enrollee is unable to track their blood sugar 
themselves. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the medical criteria for a CGM have not been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that therapeutic CGMs are considered medically 
reasonable and necessary when prescribed in accordance with their FDA indications for enrollees with diabetes 
who are insulin treated or who have a history of problematic hypoglycemia, and have had an in-person visit 
with their treating physician to evaluate their diabetes control and determine whether the criteria for coverage 
have been met. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The documentation indicates that the enrollee does not use insulin. 
Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of a CGM have not been met. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve. a Freestyle Libre 3 continuous glucose 
monitor (CGM).
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 need rehabilitation as soon as possible so you 
can get back to a normal quality of life. You say you are not receiving rehabilitation where you are. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says 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 your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not require an 
acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. You require treatment by 
multiple therapies, including physical therapy and occupational therapy, but this can be provided in a lower 
level of care. There is a reasonable expectation that you will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the 
intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF, but the services required can be provided at a 
lower level of care.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for physicians services provided on March 23, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for physicians services. You say that the services were medically necessary. 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 physicians services 
provided on March 23, 2023.
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Prolia. You asked the Plan to pre-approve Prolia. You 
say that the requested drug is medically necessary to treat the enrollee's condition.  The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested drug is covered when criteria are met. The unmet criteria are: the enrollee 
has a history of osteoporotic fracture OR has tried or cannot use zoledronic acid.  
 
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 Prolia. Our reviewer says that the 
requested drug is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the record indicates the enrollee 
has age related osteoporosis without osteoporotic fracture. The requested medication is a new start. The 
provided records do not indicate that the enrollee has tried and failed the Plan's preferred step one alternative. 
The record does not indicate that the enrollee has a contraindication to or would have an adverse effect from 
the Plan's preferred step one alternative. 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 Prolia have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pre-approve Prolia.
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 LTACH services are not medically 
necessary, and the enrollee's needs can be met at a lower level of care such as an acute rehabilitation facility, 
skilled nursing facility, nursing facility, outpatient setting or home care. The Plan denied your request. The 
Plan says the LTACH services are 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 the enrollee was admitted to the acute care hospital with right foot osteomyelitis in 
the setting of end stage renal disease requiring surgeries, antibiotics, wound care, and dialysis. The enrollee appears to be improving with current treatment and should only require short-term additional acute care 
services that can safely be provided at the current facility until more stable and appropriate for transfer to a 
lower level of care. 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the application of mechanical traction provided from August 
4, 2023, to August 7, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the application of mechanical traction. You say that the services were needed to 
alleviate leg pain. You say you had been unable to walk. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
services are not covered benefits. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that the only chiropractic service Medicare covers is 
manual manipulation of the spine to correct a subluxation.  
 
The records show that the services at issue are not manual manipulation of the spine. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan does not have to pay for the application of mechanical traction provided from August 4, 2023, to 
August 7, 2023.