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 you are not receiving the rehabilitation services you 
need at the current facility. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee 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 your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not require 
an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. While the medical 
record supports a need for physical or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive 
rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different level of care. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that an IRF admission is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's condition does not meet the Medicare 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 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 enrollee 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: 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's condition requires an IRF level of care. 
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 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 enrollee 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: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for home health services (G0299, G0300, Q5001) provided July 
29, 2022, to August 12, 2022. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for home health services. You say that you disagree with the denial and request 
reconsideration. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the NOA was not received timely. As such, this 
final claim was correctly denied.  
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that an NOA must be submitted within 5 days of the start of 
care date for home health services. NOAs which are received more than 30 days from the timely filing date 
result in no payment being made for the episode of care.  
 
In this case, the start of care date is May 30, 2022. The NOA was not received by the Plan until September 22, 
2022. As more than 30 days passed between the timely filing date and the NOA receipt, no payment can be 
made on this claim. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for home health services (G0299, 
G0300, Q5001) provided July 29, 2022, to August 12, 2022.
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 an IRF admission is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says that 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 found to be medically reasonable and necessary for this enrollee. Our physician reviewer 
found the enrollee's condition is, in fact, complex and fragile, and there is every reason to expect that the 
enrollee will participate in and benefit from IRF services. 
 
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: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Euflexxa (J7323). 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve Euflexxa. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this request does not 
meet the Part B step therapy criteria for the requested viscosupplement device. 
 
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 Euflexxa. Our reviewer says that the 
enrollee does not meet the coverage criteria for Euflexxa. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has not 
tried and failed the required drugs. Our reviewer also found that there is no documentation provided indicating 
that the Plan's required drugs would likely be less effective and/or likely have adverse effects for the 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 Euflexxa have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Euflexxa (J7323).
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for infusion supplies (E0781, A4222) provided on November 16, 2021 to 
December 29, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for infusion supplies. You say that this service was medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says that the appeal was not reviewed within the allowable timeframe. 
 
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 documentation provided by the plan does not clearly articulate the denial 
reason. The documentation does not cite the Medicare rule or policy used to make the determination. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for infusion supplies (E0781, A4222) provided on November 
16, 2021 to December 29, 2021.  
 
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: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 87634 billed for date of service February 20, 
2023.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 87634. You say that this service was medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the number of units billed exceeds the maximum allowed.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that submitted claims in which the unit of service 
exceeds the MUE value cannot be paid when the MAI value is 3, unless there is evidence justifying the excess 
units.  
 
In this case, the MUE for CPT code 87634 is 1. The MAI value for this code is 3. You billed 2 units of this 
code, exceeding the MUE. You did not provide all the required evidence showing that the excess units were 
actually provided, were correctly coded, and were medically necessary. Based on this information, we decided 
that Medicare rules for coverage of procedure code 87634 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 87634 billed for date of service February 20, 2023.
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 requires intensive therapy to optimize 
their 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 need physician supervision 3 times a week or intensive 
therapy 3 hours a day and 5 days per week with a multidisciplinary approach in an IRF. While the enrollee may 
benefit from physical and occupational therapy the enrollee's needs can be provided in an alternate setting such 
as skilled nursing 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 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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an Intracept procedure. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve an Intracept procedure. You say that the enrollee has pain that is disabling, 
affects his quality of life on a daily basis, and has been long-term duration. The Plan denied your request. The 
Plan says this procedure is experimental/investigational. 
 
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 an 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 (MRI) showing only modic changes without 
facet joint disease or foraminal stenosis. Also, the cause of 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 an Intracept procedure have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve an Intracept procedure.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a MyoPro Orthosis (L8702). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a MyoPro Orthosis. You say that the MyoPro is supported as an appropriate 
intervention and is reasonably and medically necessary as recognized by medical communities and key opinion 
leaders in rehabilitation. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says a myoelectric orthosis is not medically 
reasonable and medically necessary for the member in this case. 
 
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 MyoPro Orthosis. Our reviewer says 
that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the MyoPro Orthosis is not known to be effective, based on scientific evidence, 
professional standards and expert opinion, in improving health outcomes. The MyoPro is not the standard of 
care for this enrollee's condition or in widespread use for this enrollee's condition based on scientific evidence. 
Our reviewer found that there is insufficient evidence in the literature that the MyoPro Orthosis will improve 
the long-term outcomes for this enrollee. Our physician reviewer also found that there is insufficient evidence 
in the literature that this device will increase participation in bimanual activities. 
 
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 MyoPro Orthosis have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a MyoPro Orthosis (L8702).
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve 10 home physical therapy visits. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve the home health services. You say that the medical records support the 
medical necessity for the additional physical therapy visits. 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 the enrollee is 
able to walk household distances but has decreased endurance. The enrollee has a caregiver and endurance 
training is repetitive exercise and does not require continued input from a skilled therapist. 
 
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 10 home physical therapy visits.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a group 2 standard power wheelchair (K0835) and 
additional items and accessories (codes E1012, E1007, E1028 x2, E0955, E2311, E2313, E2377, E2361, and 
E2603). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a group 2 standard power wheelchair and additional items and accessories. 
You say that you acknowledge the original denial and a dropping the chair base to K0835. You also say that 
you would like this to be reviewed for K0835. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does 
not have a qualifying diagnosis causing mobility limitation for which group 3 power wheelchair is medically 
needed. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that a group 2 single power option power wheelchair 
(such as K0835) is covered if the coverage criteria listed in the Medicare rules section of this letter are 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 group 2 standard power wheelchair 
and additional items and accessories. Our reviewer says that the enrollee does not meet the criteria for 
coverage. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee does 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 2 standard power wheelchair and additional items and accessories have 
not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a group 2 standard power 
wheelchair (K0835) and additional items and accessories (codes E1012, E1007, E1028 x2, E0955, E2311, 
E2313, E2377, E2361, and E2603).
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for procedure code 20680 billed for date of service January 6, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 20680. You say that there are no bundling edits. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says that the code is not separately reimbursable. 
 
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 claim shows that CPT codes 13160 and 20680 were billed on the same date of service. We looked at the 
file and the rules. The Plan denied services stating per NCCI edits, the code is included in the payment of other 
services. In this case, we have confirmed that there are no edits for codes 13160 and 20680. The case file does 
not show that any other codes were billed or provided on the date of service at issue. The Plan has not made 
reasonable and diligent efforts to gather and forward to us information regarding their decision to deny your 
request.  Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for procedure code 20680 billed for date of service 
January 6, 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the intraosseous radiofrequency ablation. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the intraosseous radiofrequency ablation. You say that  the enrollee has tried 
and failed conservative treatment without relief. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the intraosseous 
radiofrequency ablation is considered investigational and 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 intraosseous radiofrequency 
ablation. Our reviewer says that the intraosseous radiofrequency ablation is not medically necessary.  Our 
physician reviewer found that the intraosseous radiofrequency ablation is considered an experimental and 
investigational therapy. 
 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 intraosseous radiofrequency ablation have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the intraosseous radiofrequency ablation.