Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the requested admission to an IRF is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested admission to an IRF does not meet 
criteria. 
 
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 was admitted for pneumonia. 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 home ventilator (E0466). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a home ventilator. You say that you cannot leave the hospital without the 
ventilator. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request for a home mechanical ventilator set in 
AVAPS mode with Auto-EPAP (AE) that could be delivered by BiPAP is not covered. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that ventilators may be covered when they are medically 
necessary for patients who have neuromuscular disease, thoracic restrictive diseases, and chronic respiratory 
failure due to COPD. 
 
 
 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 home ventilator. Our reviewer says 
that the service is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found you have COPD and severe obesity, 
with recent repeated hospitalizations for hypercapnic respiratory failure. ABGs were consistent with acute on 
chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure. However, there is no ABG done while stable to confirm chronic CO2 
retention. There are no pulmonary function tests to confirm airways obstruction and assess severity. If you do 
have chronic CO2 retention, you may benefit from BiPAP with AVAPS during sleep as an outpatient. This has 
not been demonstrated to fail as an outpatient. Medicare does not cover a home ventilator when used at settings 
that can be provided with BiPAP. 
 
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 home ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a home ventilator (E0466).
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for drug testing (G0482) provided on October 3, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the drug testing. You say that this service was medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the records do not support the billed service. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that for drug testing to be covered the patients medical 
record must include an appropriate testing frequency based on the stage of treatment or recovery, the rationale 
for the drug/drug classes ordered, and the results are documented in the medical record and used to direct care 
 
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 drug testing. Our reviewer says that this 
testing was not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the patient did not have any indication for 
such an extensive definitive testing panel. There was no unexpected result found on a screening urine test, nor 
was there record of the patient being on so many drug classes. 
 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 drug testing have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pay for drug testing (G0482) provided on October 3, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the services provided on November 11, 2022, by an out-of-
network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services are 
available 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 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 services at issue in this appeal. The Plan did not pre-approve the 
services at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay for these services. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the services provided on November 11, 2022, by an out-of-
network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a continued stay at a psychiatric inpatient hospitalization 
provided on March 1, 2022, to March 17, 2022. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for a continued stay at a psychiatric inpatient hospitalization. You say that the full 
length of stay was medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says these services were not 
medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that inpatient psychiatric services may be covered if the 
patient requires active treatment.  
 
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 a continued stay at a psychiatric inpatient 
hospitalization. Our reviewer says that this admission was not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer 
found based upon review the records provided for the admission of this enrollee does not meet the criteria for 
March 1, 2022, forward as this enrollee was not shown to be a danger to herself or others, delusions, auditory 
or visual hallucinations noted. She was cooperative/compliant with treatment while not showing any threats the 
safety. 
 
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 continued stay at a psychiatric inpatient hospitalization have not been met. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a continued stay at a psychiatric inpatient 
hospitalization provided on March 1, 2022, to March 17, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the services provided on January 3, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the claim must be 
submitted to the primary insurer. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules state that Medicare plans are considered secondary insurers 
when an enrollee has another type of insurance. This means that the Plan is not responsible for paying for 
services until the claim for those services has gone to the primary insurer. However, plans are still required to 
coordinate their benefits with the primary insurers.  Plans can coordinate their benefits with the primary insurers in three ways. First, the Plan can send the bill 
directly to the primary insurer for payment. Second, the Plan can direct the provider to send the bill to the 
primary insurer. Third, the Plan can pay for the services and submit a bill for reimbursement to the primary 
insurer. 
 
The Plan has met its obligation with regards to coordination of benefits. Specifically, the Plan has directed the 
provider to send the bill to the primary insurer As the secondary insurer, the Plan cannot be held responsible for 
the services until the primary insurer has denied the claim for these services. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pay for the services provided on January 3, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve genicular nerve destruction. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the services. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says this is considered experimental, investigational, and unproven. 
 
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 this is considered an experimental procedure because there are ongoing clinical trials to assess the 
role of genicular nerve blocks and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in the treatment of knee pain. 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 the services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve genicular nerve destruction.
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 are requesting an expedited reconsideration for 
the denial of a SNF admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 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 not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee does not have daily skilled nursing needs that require the specialized 
skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional nurse. The enrollee does not have daily skilled therapy 
needs that require the specialized skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional therapist. The 
enrollee does not require daily skilled nursing and/or skilled therapy on an inpatient basis in a skilled nursing 
facility (SNF) setting. The enrollee does not meet severity of illness or intensity of service criteria for an 
inpatient basis in a skilled nursing facility 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: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the ambulance service, basic life support, non-emergency 
transport provided on December 6, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the ambulance service. You say that the medical records provided support the 
need for the ambulance transport. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this claim does not meet 
medical criteria for the ambulance transport. 
 
Medicare pays for ambulance services only when they are medically reasonable and necessary. The Plan 
follows the same rules.  
 
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 ambulance service. Our reviewer says 
that the ambulance transport was not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the transportation via 
ambulance to the emergency room was not medically necessary. The enrollee did not require the expertise of 
trained personnel or the equipment available only on an ambulance in order to effectuate a safe transport.  
Oxygen is routinely used/administered by laypersons via a portable oxygen tank/concentrator.  Transportation could have been provided by other means (stretcher van, wheelchair van, private car, taxi) 
without endangering the enrollee's condition. 
 
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 ambulance service have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pay for the ambulance service, basic life support, non-emergency transport provided on 
December 6, 2022.
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 stay is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the stay is not medically necessary based on IRF criteria. 
 
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 do not require the intensity of services provided at an IRF. Specifically, you are 
not shown to require fifteen hours per week of rehabilitative services and regular physician evaluation. Your 
care needs can be met 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 long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the stay is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's records do not meet all the requirements, care can be provided 
in the current inpatient hospital. 
 
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 there are no services available at the LTACH that the enrollee requires that are not 
available at the health care setting being offered by the Health Plan. The Health Plan has approved ongoing 
care in the current acute care 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 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 hospital discharge management services (99239) 
provided on October 13, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this service is not 
payable as billed. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that only one hospital inpatient or observation 
discharge day management service is payable per patient per hospital stay.  
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. In this case, three hospital discharge management codes (99239) 
were billed on consecutive dates of service during the same stay. Only one code is payable per stay. As such, 
the requested discharge day management services are not covered. 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 pay for the hospital discharge management services (99239) provided on October 13, 2022.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the services are necessary as you are unable to use 
your leg and are worried about falling and being put back into the hospital again. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says you do not meet the Medicare criteria for admission to an inpatient rehabilitation facility. 
 
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 you do not require treatment by multiple therapies. 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: 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 stay is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the stay is not medically necessary based on SNF criteria. 
 
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 qualify for SNF coverage. You do not have documented skilled nursing 
needs. You do not have documented skilled therapy needs. Daily skilled services are not shown to be required 
to establish a maintenance program or to prevent deterioration of your condition. Your care needs appear to be 
custodial and can, as a practical matter, 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 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 99053 billed for date of service June 8, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 99053. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says procedure 
code 99053 is considered bundled and not separately payable. 
 
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 99053 has a status indicator of B on the Physician Fee Schedule. This means that 
procedure code 99053 is not separately payable. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of procedure code 99053 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay 
for procedure code 99053 billed for date of service June 8, 2022.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Feraheme.  
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Feraheme. You say that this drug is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says a trial of Venofer or Infed is required before alternatives can be considered. 
 
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 Feraheme. Our reviewer says that 
Feraheme is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the records do not show a trial of the plan 
preferred drugs, or any reason they would be unsafe or ineffective. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Feraheme have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Feraheme.