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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a PET scan.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the PET scan. You say that you are appealing with supporting records. 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 that the provided records in this case do 
not document concern for FTD or AD. The records indicate concern for Lewy body dementia. 
 
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 PET scan.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Freestyle Libre 14 continuous glucose monitor (CGM) 
system. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a Freestyle Libre 14 system. You say that the services are necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says based on the documentation provided, coverage criteria has not been 
met. 
 
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 you do not use insulin or have a 
history of problematic hypoglycemia. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage 
of a Freestyle Libre 14 system have not been met.  Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-
approve a Freestyle Libre 14 continuous glucose monitor (CGM) system.
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 altered mental status. 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: Surgery
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve the septoplasty (30520). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the septoplasty. You say that the enrollee has tried hydroxyzine for allergies 
and Flonase for congestion with no improvement.  The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the service 
is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that if there are no specific coverage rules for an item 
or service, then that item or service will be covered when it is 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 the septoplasty. Our reviewer says that 
the requested items/services are considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found the procedure meets criteria for coverage with the patient having received maximum medical 
treatment for symptoms with use of intranasal steroids and with the patient displaying symptoms of continued 
nasal obstruction. As summarized by Up to Date: "In general, structural disorders are most effectively treated 
with surgical intervention... Septoplasty is the definitive treatment in patients with nasal obstruction due to 
septal deviation. Reported rates of long-term efficacy vary, but one study reported that septoplasty was 
successful in reducing nasal symptoms in up to 89 percent of patients." The requested procedure meets 
Medicare criteria for coverage.  
 
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 septoplasty have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-
approve the septoplasty (30520).  
 
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 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 the enrollee continues to have a need for skilled therapy with ongoing safety 
concerns and a potential for functional improvement; however, the documentation does not support that the 
enrollee would meet criteria for admission to an acute inpatient rehabilitation facility. There is no indication 
that the enrollee would require skilled rehabilitation in an IRF, participating in rehabilitation services 15 hours 
a week, under the supervision of a physician with at least 3 visits weekly to regain or maintain the enrollee's 
functional status. The enrollee can receive further services 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: Hospice
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for hospital discharge day management provided on September 
26, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the hospital discharge day management. You say that the enrollee was not on 
hospice on this date. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says Original Medicare is responsible for 
payment. 
 
Medicare rules say that Original Medicare, not the Plan, is responsible for all Medicare-covered non-hospice 
services. Medicare hospice pays for claims related to the terminal illness. The rules say that the Plan may direct 
the provider to bill Medicare directly for these services.  The enrollee was under the Medicare hospice benefit for the dates of service at issue in this appeal. Therefore, 
we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for hospital discharge day management provided on September 
26, 2022.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve continued home health skilled nursing services (G0299). 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve home health services. You say that you disagree with the denial and request 
reconsideration for an additional home health visit. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services 
are not medically necessary.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that home health care services may be covered if it is 
medically necessary for the enrollee to receive skilled nursing or therapy. A doctor must certify the need for 
home health care services. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve home health services. Our reviewer 
says that the services are not medically reasonable and necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee 
has a past medical history of multiple comorbidities previously evaluated after foot wound in February 2023. 
Clinical documentation shows that acute clinical conditions have resolved (wound- healed; no medication 
changes). Concerns listed are related to functional impairments thus 1 additional home health nursing visit is 
not medically necessary. The records do not show that skilled nursing services are required to effectively 
provide treatment, care, and/or services in order to improve the enrollee's condition, or to establish/perform a 
maintenance program to maintain the enrollee's condition and/or prevent deterioration. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of home health services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve continued home health skilled nursing services (G0299).
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for inpatient hospital care provided from November 18, 2022, to 
November 23, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the inpatient care. You say that the services were medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says that the services were not authorized. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that if there are no specific coverage rules for an item 
or service, then that item or service will be covered when it is 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 pay for the inpatient care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested items/services are considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case.   Our physician 
reviewer found the enrollee reported active bleeding, was found to have anemia, and had worsening anemia 
upon initial reassessment. The services were considered emergent. 
 
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 inpatient care have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay 
for inpatient hospital care provided from November 18, 2022, to November 23, 2022.  
 
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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a power operated vehicle, group 1 standard, patient 
weight capacity up to and including 300 pounds (K0800). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a power wheelchair. You say that the enrollee has intervertebral disc 
disorder with radiculopathy, lumbar region. The enrollee is unable to use a cane or walker, due to the enrollee 
falling a lot. He is unable to use a manual wheelchair due to having multiple joint pain and shoulder pain. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request does not meet the Medicare or health plan coverage 
criteria. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that a PMD will not be covered if the patient does not 
have mobility deficit that impairs their participation in MRADLs, the patients condition can be ameliorated by 
a walker, cane or manual wheelchair, or the patient is not capable of safely operating the requested PMD.  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 power wheelchair. Our reviewer says 
that the service is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has chronic back pain 
and radiculopathy. He has normal upper body strength and range of motion on exam. He has decreased strength 
in his left lower extremity. The record indicates the enrollee has adequate strength to manage a manual 
wheelchair. 
 
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 power wheelchair have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a power operated vehicle, group 1 standard, patient weight capacity up to and 
including 300 pounds (K0800).
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. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says based on the documentation provided, coverage criteria has not been met. 
 
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 
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. 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. 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. 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 shower chair.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a shower chair. You say that you would like the request approved because it 
will be beneficial to the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this item is not covered by 
Medicare. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that shower chairs are not covered because they are 
not primarily medical in nature.  
 
While a shower chair may be appropriate in this case, neither the Plan nor Medicare offers coverage of this 
item. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a shower chair.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee requires IRF services in order to get 
stronger and prevent future falls.  The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the 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 that the enrollee does not have complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. 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 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 IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve foot orthotics.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve foot orthotics. You say that you would like the inserts to help with walking 
and pain. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this item is not a covered benefit. 
 
Medicare rules state that supportive devices for the feet (such as orthotics) are only covered for patients with 
diabetic foot disease or for patients who wear a leg brace. The Plan follows these same rules.   
 
Records show that you do not suffer from diabetic foot disease, and you do not wear a leg brace. Although 
orthotics may be appropriate for you, neither Medicare nor the Plan provides coverage of orthotics for your 
condition. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve foot orthotics.
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 the denial. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says that the 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 you do not require daily skilled nursing or therapy services. You do not require 
daily skilled nursing and/or skilled therapy on 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to reduce the copayment for the vision services provided on February 
10, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to reduce the copayment for the vision services. You say that you do not know why you are 
being charged $50. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this cost sharing was charged correctly. 
 
The rules say a plan must disclose to its enrollees in clear, accurate terms all cost sharing information (such as 
copayments, deductibles and coinsurance). Your contract with the Plan clearly says that you must pay a $50 
copayment for vision care. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $50 copayment for the vision services. This item/service falls within the vision 
care benefit category. This means that you have been asked to pay the correct amount based on your contract 
with the Plan. This cost sharing is a contractual obligation you agreed to pay when you enrolled in the Plan. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to reduce the copayment for the vision services provided on 
February 10, 2023.