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

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve a positron emission tomography (PET) scan with concurrently 
acquired computed tomography (CT) scan (78815). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a PET/CT scan. You say that you are requesting reconsideration for the 
denial of a PET/CT scan. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that your records do not show you meet 
criteria for the requested PET/CT scan. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that PET scans 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 a PET/CT scan. Our reviewer says that 
the service is medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that given the prior PET scan showed uptake 
in the area of previous cancer and treatment, it is reasonable to follow-up this region with a repeat PET scan.  
 
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 PET/CT scan have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-
approve a positron emission tomography (PET) scan with concurrently acquired computed tomography (CT) 
scan (78815).  
 
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 has a serious, life threatening 
constellation of acute medical problems that have left them at a functional status below their baseline. You say 
the enrollee will clearly benefit from IRF services to optimize their level of functioning prior to returning 
home. 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 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's 
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 therapy and/or 
occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. Medically necessary 
care can be provided in a different level of care. There is not a reasonable expectation that the enrollee will be 
able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
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 appealing this denial. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says admission to a SNF is 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 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 SNF setting. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of SNF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve SNF care.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a home ventilator. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the home ventilator. You say that the BiPAP was tried and failed in the 
hospital.  The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not appear to have the severity of 
illness that would justify the need for a home mechanical ventilator.  
 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. Claims for ventilators used to provide CPAP or bi-level CPAP therapy will be denied as 
not reasonable and 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 home ventilator. Our reviewer says 
that the service is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the record indicates that the enrollee 
was successfully treated with BiPAP in the hospital. The provided primary source documentation does not 
contain sufficient detailed information in the medical record to justify the treatment selected. The enrollee 
could be treated with a BiPAP machine with average volume assured pressure support (AVAPS) capability and 
failure of such a device has not been documented. The Plan has indicated coverage for such a device is 
available upon request. 
 
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 home ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a home ventilator.
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 services are medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee is receiving appropriate inpatient acute care and is 
currently unstable for transfer to an LTACH. 
 
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 record indicates that the enrollee remains critically ill and still requires acute care 
services. The enrollee continues to receive acute care services, and these have not been denied. The medical 
record does not indicate that the enrollee requires services that they are not currently receiving but that would 
be available at the LTACH facility. The elements of the coverage rules are not satisfied. The requested service 
cannot be recommended. 
 
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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a home ventilator system. 
 
  You asked the Plan to pre-approve a home ventilator system. You say that the enrollee has had three hospital 
admissions in the last 10 months due to elevated carbon dioxide levels. You say that a BiPAP has not helped.  
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says a home ventilator is not medically necessary for this patient 
because their needs can be met with an alternative device such as a BiPAP device with average volume-assured 
pressure support (AVAPS).  
 
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. Claims for ventilators used to provide CPAP or bi-level CPAP therapy will be denied as 
not reasonable and 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 a home ventilator system. Our reviewer 
says that a home ventilator system is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee 
has COPD with multiple hospitalizations for exacerbations. While the enrollee has improved on a BiPAP while 
being admitted in the hospital, the records do not show that the enrollee has tried and failed a BiPAP with 
AVAPS as an outpatient. Therefore, a home ventilator is not medically necessary. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of a home ventilator system have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve a home ventilator system.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 93280 rendered on April 6, 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 Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 93280-26-59 remains not supported. 
 
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, the CPT Code Manual definition of code 93280 is "Programming device evaluation (in person) 
with iterative adjustment of the implantable device to test the function of the device and select optimal permanent programmed values with analysis, review and report by a physician or other qualified health care 
professional; dual lead pacemaker system." 
 
We asked our coder 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 not supported by the medical records. Our reviewer found that the provider reported CPT 93280 
with modifier 59 to indicate a distinct procedural service. The procedure report describes insertion of 
pacemaker and programming during the same session. Therefore, the procedure code and the modifier would 
not be supported. 
 
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 not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pay for procedure code 93280 rendered on April 6, 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 the services are medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the criteria for admission to an IRF.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee is chronically deconditioned. The enrollee does not have complex or 
intensive rehabilitation needs. The enrollee does not require frequent physiatry oversight. The enrollee's 
dementia limits their capacity to benefit from and participate in intensive rehabilitation 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 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 system. 
 
  You asked the Plan to pre-approve a home ventilator system. You say that while other devices can provide a 
similar mode called AVAPS, they are not equipped with the same pressure, flow ranges or features necessary 
for the enrollee's need of advanced ventilation. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says a home ventilator 
is not medically necessary for this patient because their needs can be met with an alternative device such as a 
BiPAP device with average volume-assured pressure support (AVAPS).  
 
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. Claims for ventilators used to provide CPAP or bi-level CPAP therapy will be denied as 
not reasonable and 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 a home ventilator system. Our reviewer 
says that a home ventilator system is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee 
has very severe COPD with recurrent hospitalizations for acute on chronic hypercarbic respiratory failure. 
However, there is no diagnosis of thoracic restrictive disease or neuromuscular disease. The enrollee may 
benefit from a BiPAP with AVAPS-AE as an outpatient, which has not been tried. Therefore, a home ventilator 
is not medically necessary. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of a home ventilator system have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve a home ventilator system.
Appeal type: Outpatient Therapies
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the physical therapy services provided on June 6, 2023, by an 
OON provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the physical therapy services. You say that you are requesting reconsideration for 
the denied claim. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services were 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 Plan contract says the enrollees POS benefit only applies to 
covered routine dental services. 
 
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 the physical therapy services provided on June 6, 
2023, by an OON provider.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an automatic external defibrillator, with integrated 
electrocardiogram analysis, garment type (K0606) to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a LifeVest. You say that the enrollee cannot be discharged from the hospital 
without this device. You also say tailored garments to the female anatomy, four channels of high-fidelity 
electrocardiogram that uses advanced signaling processing and automatic data transmission is unavailable from 
any other provider. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee must use network providers to get 
her medical care and services. 
 
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 
an automatic external defibrillator, with integrated electrocardiogram analysis, garment type (K0606) to be 
provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the continued use of a home ventilator. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the continued use of a home ventilator. You say that due to the enrollee's 
health, it is medically necessary for the continued use of a home ventilator. The Plan denied your request. The 
Plan says a home ventilator is not medically necessary for this patient because their needs can be met with an 
alternative device such as a BiPAP device with average volume-assured pressure support (AVAPS). 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. Claims for ventilators used to provide CPAP or bi-level CPAP therapy will be denied as 
not reasonable and 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 continued use of a home ventilator. 
Our reviewer says that the service is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the record 
indicates the enrollee has chronic respiratory failure from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and obesity 
hypoventilation syndrome with obstructive physiology. The record indicates that the enrollee was successfully 
treated with BiPAP. The provided primary source documentation does not contain sufficient detailed 
information in the medical record to justify the treatment selected. The enrollee could be treated with a BiPAP 
machine with AVAPS capability and failure of such a device has not been documented. The plan has indicated 
coverage for such a device is available upon request. 
 
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 continued use of a home ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the continued use of a home ventilator.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an echocardiography, transesophageal (93312) to be 
provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve an echocardiography, transesophageal. You say that you disagree with the 
denial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee must use network providers to get his medical 
care and services. 
 
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 
an echocardiography, transesophageal (93312) to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
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 services are medically necessary for 
the enrollee's care needs. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says when the enrollee is ready to leave the 
hospital, their care can be provided in an alternate setting. 
 
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 record indicates that the enrollee has ongoing acute medical issues and still 
requires acute care services. The enrollee continues to receive acute care services, and these have not been 
denied. The medical record does not indicate that the enrollee requires services that they are not currently 
receiving but that would be available at the LTACH facility. The elements of the coverage rules 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 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.