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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for portable x-ray services (Q0092, 71045, R0070) provided on 
June 20, 2023, by an out-of-network (OON) provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for portable x-ray services. You say that this was medically necessary and needed 
for the day it was ordered. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this was not authorized and was done 
for screening purposes. 
 
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 portable x-ray services (Q0092, 71045, R0070) 
provided on June 20, 2023, by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for infrared therapy devices provided on June 28, 2023. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for infrared therapy devices. You say that you are requesting reconsideration for the 
denied claim. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says it is considered not reasonable and necessary by 
Medicare and is excluded from coverage. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that the use of infrared therapy devices and any related 
accessories is not reasonable and necessary. The rules say that items and services that are not medically 
necessary are not covered. 
 
The services/items at issue in this appeal are for infrared therapy. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pay for infrared therapy devices provided on June 28, 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 these services are medically necessary and you want 
to return to being independent. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the required services can be 
provided in an alternate setting.  
 
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 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. You require treatment by multiple therapies, but this can be provided in a lower level of 
care. There is documentation that 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: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for skilled nursing facility (SNF) care provided from February 4, 
2023, to February 17, 2023. 
  You asked the Plan to pay for SNF care. You say that you had to get a loan to pay for the SNF care you 
received and now will be in debt for years. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you no longer required 
skilled nursing or skilled therapy 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 pay for 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 and/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 pay for skilled nursing facility (SNF) care provided from February 4, 2023, to 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 require an IRF admission to regain your full 
level of function. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's condition does not meet the 
requirements for an IRF admission.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The enrollee 
does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and 
an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While the medical record supports a need for physical or 
occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. There is not 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. 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: Home Health
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for home health services rendered from June 4, 2023, to June 23, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. You say that this should be paid for. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says that the documentation did not support the primary diagnosis billed on the claim as the reason 
the patient required the home care. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
 
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 pay for the services. Our reviewer says that the 
services at issue in this case were supported by the medical records. Our reviewer found that in this case, the 
documentation does support that the correct PDGM code was submitted by the organization. The 
documentation indicates that the primary diagnosis code was represented in the clinical documentation received 
due to the enrollee requiring a redo of vascular bypass grafting in the lower extremity due to lower extremity 
ischemic pain. The primary diagnosis code of T82.868D Thrombosis due to vascular prosthetic devices, 
implants and grafts did appear to be related to the skilled services. The partial adjustment was not appropriate. 
 
We looked at this coder's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the services have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for 
home health services rendered from June 4, 2023, to June 23, 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.
Appeal type: Other
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a spinal cord stimulator. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a spinal cord stimulator. You say that the services are necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says based on the documentation provided, coverage criteria has not been met. 
 The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that no payment may be made for the implantation of 
dorsal column or depth brain stimulators or services and supplies related to such implantation, unless all of the 
conditions have been met. 
 
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 spinal cord stimulator. Our reviewer 
says that the services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found there is inadequate 
documentation that supports that this is a late, last resort.  There is no psychological evaluation. Therefore, the 
request is deemed not medically reasonable and necessary at this time. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of a spinal cord stimulator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve a spinal cord stimulator.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve Fulphila. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Fulphila. You say that this is a necessary part of the enrollee's treatment. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that this is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare may pay for unlabeled uses for anti-cancer 
drugs if they are medically accepted as safe and effective or appropriate for the particular use.  
 
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 Fulphila. Our reviewer says that the 
requested use of Fulphila is supported and medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found although the 
requested use of Fulphila is not Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved for the enrollee's condition, it 
is supported by research published in the Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology. The 
documentation supports that the requested drug is safe, effective, and otherwise reasonable and necessary for 
this enrollee. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Fulphila have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-approve 
Fulphila.  
 
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: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve home health skilled nursing visits. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve home health services. You say that this is medically 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 that the 
clinical documentation does not specify any acute clinical status changes, medication or plan of care changes or 
complex wounds thus the records do not show that 8 home health skilled nursing (G0299) or 8 home health 
skilled nursing (G0300) visits are required to effectively provide treatment, care, and/or services in order to 
improve the enrollee's condition, or to establish/perform a maintenance program to maintain the enrollee's 
condition and/or prevent deterioration. 
 
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 skilled nursing visits.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve primary care services to be provided by an out-of-
network (OON) provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve primary care services. You say that you are requesting reconsideration for 
the denied claim. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this provider is out-of-network, and the services 
could be performed in-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 pre-approve care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving 
emergencies, out of area urgent care and care that cannot be provided by network providers. 
 
The requested provider in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan has network providers available who can provide the items/services at issue in this appeal. We found no exception that would require 
the Plan to pre-approve these items/services. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve 
primary care services to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
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 the enrollee has received SNF services previously 
and it has helped them tremendously. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the SNF services are not 
medically necessary. 
 
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 that at the time of discharge from the hospital, you had stabilized medically. You did 
not require any skilled nursing or rehab services on a daily basis at an inpatient level of care. You were not 
expected to make measurable gains within a reasonable and predictable period of time or require skilled 
therapy to prevent deterioration with mobility or self-care tasks. You did not require skilled therapy to establish 
a safe and effective maintenance program. As a practical matter, the enrollee did not require any skilled 
services on an inpatient basis, at a SNF level of care at the time of discharge from the hospital. 
 
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: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the pelvis. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the MRI. You say that the imaging is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the criteria for coverage have not been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that MRIs 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 MRI. Our reviewer says that the 
service is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the last MRI was in August 2023, in which a 
suspicious lesion was identified; a subsequent biopsy confirmed prostate cancer. Urology is following the 
patient's prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and a biopsy is scheduled for May 2024. Documentation fails to 
clarify the clinical rationale for the MRI as the documented plan states to return in 6 months (around 
5/15/2024) for Fusion biopsy next available. 
 
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 MRI have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the pelvis.
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 these services are medically necessary for the 
enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the required services may be provided in an alternate 
setting.  
 
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 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 enrollee requires treatment by multiple therapies. There is documentation that there 
is 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, 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 pre-approve medical nutrition therapy services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve medical nutrition therapy services. You say that you are requesting 
reconsideration for the denied claim. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the criteria state the member 
must have diabetes or a renal disease. The notes do not mention the diagnosis of either of those medical 
conditions. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for medical nutrition therapy services 
only for enrollees with renal disease or diabetes.  
 
Records do not show that you suffer from renal disease or diabetes. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve medical nutrition therapy services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acupuncture services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve acupuncture services. You say that you are requesting reconsideration for 
the denied claim. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there were no records submitted that show that 
you have a condition for which acupuncture is covered. Acupuncture is only covered for Medicare members 
with chronic lower back pain. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that acupuncture services are not covered by Medicare. 
However, for services provided on or after January 21, 2020, Medicare offers limited coverage for acupuncture 
treatments for CLBP meeting certain requirements, up to 12 sessions per 90-day period, and no more than 20 sessions per year.  
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that the rules for coverage of 
the acupuncture services have not been met. Specifically, acupuncture is only covered for Medicare members 
with chronic low back pain. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acupuncture 
services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for wound care supplies provided on June 29, 2023, by an out-
of-network (OON) provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for wound care supplies. You say that this should be covered as part of the enrollee's 
facility stay. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this was not authorized. 
 
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 wound care supplies provided on June 29, 2023, 
by an out-of-network (OON) provider.