Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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 you can't get out of bed and you still need physical 
and occupational therapy. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you do not meet Medicare guidelines 
for services in an inpatient rehabilitation facility. 
 
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 an 
IRF admission, as best summarized by the occupational therapy note on October 23, 2023 and the physical 
therapy note from October 27, 2023. Your condition is complex and fragile, and there is every reason to expect 
that you will participate in and benefit from IRF-level services to include at minimum physical and 
occupational therapy, physician oversight of wound care and polypharmacy, and case manager coordination of 
any additional services that might be needed to make a sustainable return home, as well as avoid preventable 
readmissions to the acute hospital. Therefore, 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 waive the copayment for an inpatient hospital stay provided on 
January 08, 2022, to January 10, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for an inpatient hospital stay. You say that you should not have a 
copayment and do not understand why the services were not covered by the Plan. 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 $340 
copayment for inpatient hospital stay. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $340 copayment for an inpatient hospital stay. This item/service falls within the inpatient hospital stay 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. You have been asked to pay $660, which is less than the standard copayment for an 
inpatient hospital stay ($340 per day x 2 days = $680). Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
waive the copayment for an inpatient hospital stay provided on January 08, 2022, to January 10, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided the Plan does not have to pay for the APE provided on December 13, 2022.

You asked the Plan to pay for this service. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this benefit was
exhausted on May 5, 2022. Maximus overturned the Plans denial for a lack of claim information in the file to
show this was previously covered. The Plan requested a reopen and provided the required documentation.

The Plan is correct in this case. The rules say a plan must disclose to its enrollees in clear, accurate terms all
cost sharing information. Your contract with the Plan clearly says only one APE is covered at no charge per
calendar year. The Plan provided documentation to show you had an APE covered at no charge on May 5,
2022. This benefit was not available for coverage at no charge until May 6, 2023. Therefore, we decided that
the Plan does not have to pay for an Annual Physical Exam (APE) provided on December 13, 2022.
Appeal type: ER
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the ED services provided on July 9, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the ED services. You say that this should be covered. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says Medicare payment cannot be made to this type of provider. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that freestanding EDs are not able to enroll in Medicare and 
cannot receive payment for services.  
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. We find that the provider at issue is not affiliated with a hospital and 
cannot receive Medicare payment.  Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the ED 
services provided on July 9, 2023.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to hold you harmless for dental implants (C1889) provided on April 25, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to hold you harmless for dental implants. You say that the Plan told you they would cover 
this cost per your doctor's instructions, but you were told in the middle of the procedure that it would not be 
covered. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that this code exceeds the maximum units allowed and is 
packaged for payment into the primary procedure. 
 
Medicare rules say that a contract provider is an agent of the plan. Services and referrals given by a contract 
provider are considered approved by the plan unless notice is provided that the services will not be covered. 
The Plan follows these rules. 
 
These services were performed by an in-network facility. The file does not show that the Plan provided notice 
that dental implants would not be covered. The Plan did not deny payment for these implants due to non-
coverage, but rather due to a perceived billing/coding issue with the number of units billed and packaging of 
payment into the comprehensive rate paid to the provider. Under Medicare rules, this means dental implants are 
considered approved by the Plan. While the Plan does not necessarily need to pay for the units of C1889 
directly, the Plan should ensure that you are not held liable for any denial of payment. The billing/coding issues 
associated with this claim should be resolved between the Plan and its in-network provider before assigning 
liability to you or asking you to pay cost-sharing for covered services. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has 
to hold you harmless for dental implants (C1889) provided on April 25, 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.  
Your complaint about receiving inaccurate information about the coverage for these services is not a valid 
appeal for medical coverage. This part of your complaint is a grievance that must be answered by the Plan. 
Medicare does not permit us to make a decision about these types of complaints.
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 are requesting reconsideration of denied 
authorization. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the IRF services requested 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 the complexity of the enrollee's 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. 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 she would meet criteria for admission to an acute inpatient rehabilitation 
facility. 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: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health services provided from January 3, 2023, to 
February 1, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the home health services. You say that you disagree with the denial. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the claim has not been billed with the correct admission date. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we 
decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the home health services have not been met. The claim was billed 
with an invalid type of bill. We find the Medicare rule for payment of this January 3, 2023, through February 1, 
2023, claim has not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health 
services provided from January 3, 2023, to February 1, 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 you want to return home as soon as possible. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the required services can be provided in an alternate 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 you are medically stable and there is no active medical complexity. Document does 
not support necessity for admission to an IRF. The complexity of your medical, rehabilitation, and nursing 
needs (combined complexity) does not require acute hospital inpatient rehabilitation stay with an 
interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitative care. Your rehabilitation needs can be safely provided in an 
alternate and low intensity setting such as in an SNF.  
 
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 long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that you are requesting reconsideration based 
on medical necessity. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request is not medically necessary. 
 
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 does not require services at the LTACH that are not available at the acute 
care hospital. There are no services available at the LTACH that the enrollee requires that are not available at 
the health care setting being offered by the Plan. Given there are offered alternatives, LTACH is not medically 
necessary. We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of 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: 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 patient is ready for discharge. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the patient is without the ability to safely tolerate and fully benefit from the 
intensity of IRF level rehabilitation.  
 
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 can be provided in 
a lower level of care and does not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to 
rehabilitation care. Our reviewer also found that the patient requires treatment by multiple therapies, including 
physical therapy and occupational therapy, but this can be provided in 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 continuous glucose monitor (CGM). You asked the Plan to pre-approve the CGM. You say that the CGM is medically necessary for the enrollee. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the Medicare criteria was not met. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that therapeutic CGMs may be considered reasonable and 
necessary for enrollees with diabetes who meet the criteria referenced 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 the CGM. Our reviewer says that the 
CGM coverage criteria was not met. Our physician reviewer found that the coverage criteria for a CGM 
requires insulin use or low blood sugars. This enrollee is not using insulin and is not having low blood sugars 
that we are told of. In addition, the medications that the enrollee is on usually do not cause low blood sugars. 
Although the CGM may help the enrollee, the coverage criteria are not met. 
 
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 CGM have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve a continuous glucose monitor (CGM).
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 you are requesting reconsideration for 
the denial of LTACH services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request is not medically 
necessary. 
 
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 does not require services at the LTACH that are not available at the 
acute care hospital. There are no services available at the LTACH that the enrollee requires that are not 
available at the health care setting being offered by the Plan. Given there are offered alternatives, LTACH is 
not medically necessary. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of 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: 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 needs this care to regain maximum level 
of function. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says medical records do not support the need for an IRF 
admission and, your needs can be provided at 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 complexity of the enrollee's medical, rehabilitation, and nursing needs does not 
require IRF care with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitative care. The enrollee's rehabilitation needs 
can be safely provided in an alternate 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 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 long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that admission is medically necessary for the 
enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee is receiving the care needed in the current 
hospital. 
 
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 acute hospital can provide for all the enrollees present inpatient care needs and 
the health plan has stated that continued care in the short-term acute hospital will be covered as is medically 
indicated.  
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: 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 need SNF services to get all your strength back. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the criteria for SNF services are not met. 
 
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 an SNF setting. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of SNF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve SNF care.