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 required care cannot be managed at a 
lower level of care and you risk further deterioration if not approved for LTACH services. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the Medicare criteria for LTACH services. 
 
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 medical record does not indicate that the enrollee requires services that they are 
not currently receiving. The enrollee still requires acute care services before transitioning to 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 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: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the inpatient rehabilitation facility services are 
medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the inpatient rehabilitation facility services 
are 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 found to be medically reasonable and necessary for this enrollee. Our physician reviewer 
found the medical record overall significantly complies with the various documentation requirements for IRF 
admission. This enrollee's condition is in fact complex and fragile, and there is every reason to expect that they 
will participate in and benefit from IRF-level services. The requested inpatient rehabilitation facility admission 
is approved. 
 
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 been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-approve 
acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.  
 
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 long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that transfer to the LTACH is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says criteria for admission to the LTACH have not been 
met. 
 
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 appears to be improving but is still somewhat unstable and should 
only require short-term additional acute care services that can safely be provided at the current facility until 
more stable and appropriate for transfer. 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: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for home health services provided from October 30, 2022, to 
November 3, 2022. 
 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the home health services. You say that your facility is small and understaffed and 
you were not aware of the enrollee's insurance. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the NOA was not 
received timely. As such, this final claim was correctly denied.  
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that an NOA must be submitted within 5 days of the start of 
care date for home health services. NOAs which are received more than 30 days from the timely filing date 
result in no payment being made for the episode of care.  
 
In this case, the start of care date is October 30, 2022. The NOA was not received by the Plan until November 
18, 2022. As more than 30 days passed between the timely filing date and the NOA receipt, no payment can be 
made on this claim. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for home health services provided 
from October 30, 2022, to November 3, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve ambulance services to be provided by an out-of-network 
(OON) provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve ambulance services. You say that it is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says this provider is out-of-network, and the services could be performed in-network. 
 
Medicare rules say that plans can require enrollees to get care from network providers. The contract with the 
Plan says that the Plan has to 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 
ambulance services 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 acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the IRF admission is necessary for the enrollee. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the criteria for the IRF admission.  
 
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 at the time of the request for an IRF admission, the enrollee is medically stable and 
complains of only neck pain. This enrollee does not meet the criteria for going to an IRF. The enrollee appears 
unwilling and unable to tolerate 15 hours of intensive therapy a week. 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 does not require treatment by multiple therapies. 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 the MyoPro device. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the device. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says experimental and investigational devices are not 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 device. Our reviewer says that the 
requested services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer 
found that the MyoPro Orthosis is not known to be effective, based on scientific evidence, professional 
standards and expert opinion, in improving health outcomes. The MyoPro is not the standard of care for this 
patient's condition or in widespread use for this enrollee's condition based on scientific evidence. There is 
insufficient evidence in the literature that the MyoPro Orthosis will improve the long term outcomes for this enrollee. There is insufficient evidence in the literature that this device will increase participation in bimanual 
activities. 
 
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 device have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve the MyoPro device.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has 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 needs inpatient rehabilitation facility 
services to regain independence. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the inpatient rehabilitation 
facility services are 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 found to be medically reasonable and necessary for this enrollee. Our physician reviewer 
found the medical record overall significantly complies with the various documentation requirements for IRF 
admission. This enrollee's condition is in fact complex and fragile enough to require IRF admission, but is also 
stable enough with a foreseeably good enough near-term prognosis to be cleared for IRF disposition now. 
There is every reason to expect that they will participate in and benefit from IRF-level services. The requested 
inpatient rehabilitation facility admission is approved. 
 
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 been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-approve 
acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.  
 
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: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for inpatient hospital services provided on February 9, 2023, to February 
13, 2023, at the Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) originally billed. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the inpatient hospital services at the DRG originally billed. You say that I21.A1 
is supported in the documentation, so the claim should be paid at the DRG originally billed. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says that I21.A1 is not supported in the documentation. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report inpatient hospital services with the appropriate DRG, which is based, in part, on the 
reported principal and secondary diagnosis codes. 
 
In this case, you billed the inpatient services provided with secondary diagnosis I21.A1, defined as myocardial 
infarction, type 2. 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 hospital 
services at the DRG originally billed. Our reviewer says that secondary diagnosis 121.A1 is supported in the 
documentation. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee had troponinemia without electrocardiogram (EKG) 
changes. This fits criteria for type 2 non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), so secondary diagnosis 
code I21.A1 is justified. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided the 
medical records do substantiate the DRG as billed. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for inpatient 
hospital services provided on February 9, 2023, to February 13, 2023, at the Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) 
originally billed.  
 
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: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health services provided from June 10, 2023, to 
July 9, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the home health services as billed. You say that the required NOA was submitted 
and received. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the claim has not been billed with the correct 
admission date. 
 The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that for home health services that are continuing from 2021, a 
NOA must be submitted for the first period of care in 2022, using the first date of the period as the admission 
date. Subsequent claims must report this new date as the admission date in order for the claim to be matched to 
the correct NOA.  
 
We reviewed the file and the Medicare rules. We find that the admission date reported on the claim at issue 
does not match the date for the NOA which is filed for the first date in 2022 as required. Based on this 
information, we find that the Medicare rules for payment of the claim at issue have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health services provided from June 10, 2023, to July 9, 
2023.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the lab panel provided on April 4, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the panel. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there is a more 
appropriate code for the billed panel. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that if a laboratory procedure produces multiple 
reportable test results, only a single HCPCS/CPT code shall be reported for the procedure. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The genetic testing in this case was billed with multiple codes and 
not one code as required by Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of the panel have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the lab 
panel provided on April 4, 2023.
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 you feel you are making progress at the SNF during 
physical therapy. You say you feel you need to stay at the SNF another week or two so you can go home 
safely. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request 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 you do not have daily skilled nursing needs that require the specialized skill, 
knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional nurse. You do not have daily skilled therapy needs that 
require the specialized skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional therapist. You do not require 
daily skilled nursing and/or skilled therapy on an inpatient basis in a skilled nursing facility (SNF) setting. 
Daily skilled services are not required to establish a maintenance program or to prevent deterioration of your 
condition. Your care needs, custodial and intermittent, can be provided at a lower level of care. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of SNF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care.
Appeal type: 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 would like reconsideration based on the records 
submitted. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's condition does not meet Medicare 
guidelines 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 that the complexity of the enrollees nursing, medical, and rehabilitation needs do not 
require an acute rehabilitation hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. 
The enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational 
therapy, at an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. 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 
inpatient rehabilitation facility.  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 IRF.  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 their 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a group 3 power wheelchair. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the requested wheelchair. You say that the enrollee's current wheelchair is 
non-functional. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not have a mobility limitation 
due to a covered condition. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that a Group 3 power wheelchair is only covered under 
certain medical conditions.  
 
We looked at the file and the rules. The file does not show that the enrollee has a mobility limitation that is due 
to a neurological condition, myopathy or congenital skeletal deformity. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve a group 3 power wheelchair.