Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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 COPD and 
respiratory failure. 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 acute respiratory failure but has improved with BiPAP therapy. There is no documented failure of a BiPAP 
and no escalations of therapies. Also, there is no indication for a home ventilator in the documents provided. 
 
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: Imaging
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for the bone density study (77080) provided July 30, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the study. You say that the claim should be paid. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says that the coverage criteria are not 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 pay for the study. Our physician reviewer found the 
enrollee is post-menopausal and therefore meets eligibility criteria by virtue of estrogen deficiency and at 
clinical risk for osteoporosis. The enrollee also carries the diagnosis of osteopenia on the enrollee's problem 
list. 
 
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 study have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for the 
bone density study (77080) provided July 30, 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: 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 is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says needs can be provided for at a lower level of care.  
 
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 patient's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The patient was 
admitted for weakness and urinary tract infection. Medical problems are stable. There are no complex nursing 
or rehabilitation needs. The patient 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 patient 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. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve the home ventilator. You say that the enrollee is under your care with 
chronic respiratory failure secondary to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). You also say 
that she has been appropriately treated with the gold standards of therapy for her severe lung disease. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says a home ventilator is not medically necessary for the enrollee 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  home ventilator. Our reviewer says 
that the home ventilator is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has severe 
COPD, with documentation of chronic CO2 retention on a baseline arterial blood gas. A home ventilator has 
been prescribed in a volume assurance mode. There is no diagnosis of thoracic restrictive disease or 
neuromuscular disease. The records state the enrollee is intolerant of BiPAP. However the records do not show 
that BiPAP with volume assurance has been tried and failed. 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 the  home ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve a home ventilator.
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 this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the skilled nursing facility (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 that there are no identifiable skilled nursing or therapy service needs. The enrollee 
does not require skilled nursing or therapy services on a daily basis. 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 skilled nursing facility (SNF) care.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the genicular nerve block. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the genicular nerve block. You say that diagnostic test planning to do knee 
radiofrequency ablation. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the genicular nerve block is 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 genicular nerve block. Our reviewer 
says that the genicular nerve block is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the genicular 
nerve block is the subject of ongoing clinical trials and is considered experimental. 
 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 genicular nerve block have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve the genicular nerve block.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve placement of an implanted loop recorder (ILR). 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve the requested ILR procedure. You say that this is medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says services not considered medically necessary are not covered by 
traditional Medicare or the plan. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say ILR placement may be considered medically 
necessary when it is needed to evaluate syncope that is thought to be cardiac-related but occurs too infrequently 
to be detected by traditional external monitors.  
 
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 requested ILR procedure. Our 
reviewer says that the requested ILR procedure is not medically reasonable and necessary based on NCD 
criteria. Our physician reviewer found that at issue is whether the requested authorization for placement of an 
ILR is medically necessary. While the patient has a history of palpitations, there is no documentation provided 
to suggest a history of unexplained syncope, cryptogenic stroke or any other apparent indication for an ILR. In 
summary, there is insufficient documentation to support the medical necessity for insertion of an ILR in this 
patient's clinical management. 
 
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 requested ILR procedure have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve placement of an implanted loop recorder (ILR).
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that admission to an LTACH is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the Medicare criteria for 
admission to an LTACH care. 
 
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 provided records do not explain what care services will be provided in the 
LTACH that are not available in the present hospital setting. Continued care in the short-term acute hospital is 
appropriate until the patient is stable to transfer to a lower level of care such as an inpatient rehabilitation facility, a sub-acute rehabilitation facility or a 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 the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve LTACH services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the genicular nerve block. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the genicular nerve block. You say that the enrollee's pain gets worse when 
they walk, stand or doing activities. You say that the genicular nerve block is the next step towards ablation to 
address the enrollee's knee pain. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the genicular nerve block is 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 genicular nerve block. Our reviewer 
says that the genicular nerve block is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the genicular 
nerve block is the subject of ongoing clinical trials and is considered experimental 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 genicular nerve block have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve the genicular nerve block.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a continuous glucose monitor.  
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the monitor. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the enrollee is not insulin treated. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that therapeutic CGMs are considered medically 
reasonable and necessary when prescribed in accordance with their FDA indications for enrollees with diabetes 
who are insulin treated or who have a history of problematic hypoglycemia, and have had an in-person visit 
with their treating physician to evaluate their diabetes control and determine whether the criteria for coverage 
have been met. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The documentation indicates that the enrollee does not use insulin. 
Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the monitor have not been met. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a continuous glucose monitor.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a positron emission tomography (PET) scan.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the PET scan. You say that the services are medically necessary for the 
enrollee's cognitive decline since a motor vehicle accident. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
criteria for coverage have not been met. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules state that a PET scan for dementia and neurodegenerative 
diseases are only covered under certain conditions. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 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 PET scan. Our reviewer says that 
the service is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the medical records provided for review 
only listed a diagnosis of a mild cognitive impairment (MCI). The enrollee was not noted to have met 
diagnostic criteria for either let alone both AD and FTD. In as much the base criteria for coverage of this 
service would not be considered to have been met at this time. Therefore, this request cannot be said to meet 
the requirements of the NCD. 
 
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 PET scan have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a positron emission tomography (PET) scan.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a SPRINT peripheral neurostimulator (PNS) system 
(64555). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a SPRINT PNS system. You say that the services are necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says medical necessity has not been established. Therefore, coverage criteria 
have not been met. 
 
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 SPRINT PNS system. Our reviewer 
says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the SPRINT PNS device is experimental for chronic pain. More research is needed. 
 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 SPRINT PNS system have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve a SPRINT peripheral neurostimulator (PNS) system (64555).
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Partially Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for the services described by procedure codes 81162, 81218, and 81209 . 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the services described by procedure codes 81201, 81292, 
81295, 81298, 81307, 81317, 81321, 81351, and 81334.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the lab testing billed for date of service May 15, 2023. You say that the treatment 
sought was medically necessary. The Plan says that one code must be submitted for the panel. 
 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for the services described by procedure codes 81162, 81218, and 
81209 .  
 
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. Specifically, the Plan did not make an appeal decision for the codes listed in this 
section. The Plan is not allowed to reopen any determinations while an appeal is pending and must issue a 
determination on all appealed services within the appeal time frame. As the Plan forfeited its opportunity to 
provide a denial rationale for these services, we find that the denial of payment is not supported.  Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan has to pay for the services described by procedure codes 81162, 81218, and 81209 .  
 
We also decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the services described by procedure codes 81201, 
81292, 81295, 81298, 81307, 81317, 81321, 81351, and 81334. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that if one laboratory procedure evaluates multiple genes 
using a next generation sequencing (NGS) procedure, the laboratory shall report only one unit of service of one 
genomic sequencing procedure, molecular multianalyte assay, multianalyte assay with algorithmic analysis, or 
proprietary laboratory analysis code. 
 
We looked at the file and the Medicare rules. We find that the comprehensive cancer panel was not billed with 
a single code as required. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage have not 
been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the services described by procedure 
codes 81201, 81292, 81295, 81298, 81307, 81317, 81321, 81351, and 81334. 
 
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 requires close physician oversight and 
management. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the records do not show the enrollee needs an 
intensive care team for care. The Plan says services may be provided at a lower level of care.  
 
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 medical 
records support 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. It 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.