Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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 enrollee requires an LTACH level of 
care and is stable for discharge. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the 
guidelines for care in 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 enrollee is unstable for transfer at this time and requires additional acute care 
hospital services that can safely be provided at the current facility. There are no services at the LTACH that the 
enrollee requires that are not already available and covered at the current facility. Transfer to the LTACH 
would not be clinically advantageous and completion of treatment at the current facility is 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: Step-Therapy
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 the requested drug is medically necessary in 
treating iron deficiency anemia. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested drug has not met the 
required step therapy requirements necessary for approval. 
 
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 the 
requested drug does not meet the criteria for approval. Our physician reviewer found oral iron was tried but 
poorly tolerated due to gastrointestinal side effects. There is no documentation that either Infed or Venofer 
have been tried and failed. These medications are likely to be as effective as Feraheme. Therefore, the 
requested drug is not reasonable or 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 Feraheme have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pre-approve Feraheme.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a DecisionDx-SCC test. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the requested test. You say that the results provide information to inform 
clinical decisions. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the test does not meet the requirements. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that for molecular diagnostic tests, the MolDX program 
requires these tests to be reviewed to determine whether Medicare reasonable and necessary requirements are 
met. We looked at the file and Medicare rules. MolDX has determined that the request test does not demonstrate 
analytical and clinical validity. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the 
requested test have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a 
DecisionDx-SCC test.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for office visit provided on March 22, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for office visit. You say that you are requesting reconsideration for the denied claim. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that unauthorized, out-of-network care is not covered. 
 
Medicare rules say that plans can require enrollees to get care from network providers. The contract with the 
Plan says that the Plan has to pay for care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving emergencies, 
out of area urgent care and pre-approved care.  
The provider of the item(s)/service(s) at issue in this appeal is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan 
did not pre-approve the item(s)/service(s) at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay 
for the item(s)/service(s). Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for office visit provided on 
March 22, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for office visit provided on March 27, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for office visit. You say that you are requesting reconsideration for the denied claim. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that unauthorized, out-of-network care is not covered. 
 
Medicare rules say that plans can require enrollees to get care from network providers. The contract with the 
Plan says that the Plan has to pay for care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving emergencies, 
out of area urgent care and pre-approved care. 
 
The provider of the item(s)/service(s) at issue in this appeal is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan did not pre-approve the item(s)/service(s) at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay 
for the item(s)/service(s). Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for office visit provided on 
March 27, 2023.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Emgality. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Emgality. You say that Emgality is medically necessary for this patient's 
medical condition and will improve their quality of life. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
medication is not covered as a medical benefit under the Plan. 
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare Part B generally does not pay for self-
administered drugs. The self-administered drugs requested here are not among the types which are covered by 
Medicare Part B. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Emgality.  
 
Benefits for Emgality may be available under Medicare Part D. Contact the Plan that administers Part D 
benefits for further information concerning any benefits and appeal rights.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the continued use of a home ventilator for nine months. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the continued use of a home ventilator for 12 months. You say that the 
requested home ventilator is medically necessary for the enrollee. 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 
for nine months. 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. 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. 
 
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 for nine months have not been met. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the continued use of a home ventilator for 
nine months.
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 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 your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not require an 
acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. Your current medical 
status does not require intensive rehabilitation physician or nursing oversight in an IRF. Your functional level 
does not require treatment by multiple therapies including physical or occupational therapy in an intensive 
rehabilitation program in an IRF. While you may benefit from additional therapy the documentation does not 
support that you require or can tolerate this therapy on an IRF level. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for code 99223 billed for date of service March 13, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for code 99223. You say that medical records have been provided to support 
payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says code 99223 is not supported by the medical record. The 
records don't support a high level of medical decision making or the total time required of the code billed. 
 
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 99223 is Initial hospital inpatient or observation care, per 
day, for the evaluation and management of a patient, which requires a medically appropriate history and/or 
examination and high level of medical decision making. When using total time on the date of the encounter for 
code selection, 75 minutes must be met or exceeded. 
 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 code 99223. Our reviewer says that code 99223 is not 
supported by the medical record. Our reviewer found there is no history of the present illness.  The medical 
decision making is not of high complexity.  As such, the billing of CPT 99223 is not 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 code 99223 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pay for code 99223 billed for date of service March 13, 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 this rehabilitation is necessary for you to be able to 
remember and understand basic things and to complete sentences and express feelings or basic needs. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says you do not meet Medicare guidelines for services in 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 complexity of your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not require an 
acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. 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.  
 
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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a CardioMEMS device (33289). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the CardioMEMS. You say that this device is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says this service is considered investigational and is non-covered. 
 
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 CardioMEMS. Our reviewer says 
that the requested services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found there is insufficient evidence to support that this device is beneficial for the enrollee's condition. 
More studies are needed to show safety and efficacy. 
 
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 CardioMEMS have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a CardioMEMS device (33289).
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve ondansetron 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the medication. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the medication 
is not covered as a medical benefit under the Plan. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare Part B generally does not pay for self-
administered drugs. The self-administered drugs requested here are not among the types which are covered by 
Medicare Part B. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve ondansetron
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a transcutaneous afferent patterned stimulation (TAPS) 
device. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the requested device. You say that the enrollee's tremor impacts her quality 
of life. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request does not meet the requirements for approval. 
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that items and services that are not medically 
necessary are not covered.  
 
We looked at the file, and Medicare rules. We find that electric nerve stimulation to treat motor function 
disorders cannot be considered reasonable and necessary. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare 
rules for coverage of the requested device have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve a transcutaneous afferent patterned stimulation (TAPS) device.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the LTACH admission is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the criteria for the LTACH 
admission. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that LTACH services are covered if they are medically 
necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the LTACH services. Our reviewer says 
that the requested LTACH care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee is receiving the appropriate care at the current acute care setting provided 
by the Health Plan. They found nothing to support that LTACH services are medically appropriate 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 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 office visit provided on August 24, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for office visit. You say that you are requesting reconsideration for the denied claim. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that unauthorized, out-of-network care is not covered. 
 
Medicare rules say that plans can require enrollees to get care from network providers. The contract with the 
Plan says that the Plan has to pay for care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving emergencies, 
out of area urgent care and pre-approved care. 
 
The provider of the item(s)/service(s) at issue in this appeal is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan did not pre-approve the item(s)/service(s) at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay 
for the item(s)/service(s). Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for office visit provided on 
August 24, 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 you need admission because you want to return to 
being independent. You also say that you are eager to participate in the three hours of aggressive rehabilitation 
that an acute rehabilitation hospital will offer you. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says based on 
Medicare guidelines, the IRF services you are requesting 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 you were admitted for surgical management of perforated bladder. Medical problems 
are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. You do 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 you 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: 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 will benefit from IRF care. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the medical records do not show a need for IRF care, and needs can be met 
in another 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 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.  
 
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.