Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee will benefit from admission to an IRF 
that cannot be accomplished at a lower level of care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's 
records do not show to have complex rehabilitation needs that require frequent evaluation by a rehabilitation 
doctor. Services needed may be provided safely in 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. 
 
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 the acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) 
admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the IRF care. You say that the IRF admission is medically necessary The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the criteria for IRF. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of the patient'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, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and 
an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. 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 as 
medically necessary care can be provided in a different level of care. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve the 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 prosthesis with a computerized knee (L5856, L5848, 
L5845, and L5828). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the prosthetic. You say that the prosthetic is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the records we have do not show why the requested prosthesis with a 
computerized knee is needed and there are other knees that can meet the enrollee's needs.  
 
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 prosthetic. Our physician reviewer 
found the physician documentation does not reveal medical reasons that support that this enrollee's activities 
cannot be met with a mechanical knee. Further the requested Ottobock C leg has convenience features that 
exceed the enrollee's medical and functional needs such as a smartphone application called Cockpit that allows 
the user track steps right from their phone and allows water submersibility of up to one meter of water for 30 
minutes. These features are not a medical necessity and are convenience features for this enrollee. The 
enrollee's needs can be safely and effectively met with a less complex knee. 
 
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 prosthetic have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a prosthesis with a computerized knee (L5856, L5848, L5845, and L5828).
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the radiological services (72040, 74230, 70100, 70310 and 
74240) provided on February 14, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. You say that the services were medically necessary because the 
enrollee suffers from feeding difficulty due to dysphagia. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
provider did not bill as required by Medicare coding regulations. 
 
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 services have not been met. Place of service 11 was billed; 
however, documentation received does not support the services performed in an office or other outpatient 
setting but rather in a mobile setting at a skilled nursing facility (SNF). There is a more appropriate place of 
service code. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the radiological services (72040, 
74230, 70100, 70310 and 74240) provided on February 14, 2023.
Appeal type: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve additional miles for routine transportation beyond the 
Plan's 50-mile limit. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve additional mileage. You say that you need transportation to an appointment. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested trip exceeds your mileage limit. 
 Medicare does not cover transport in a vehicle that is not an ambulance. However, the Plan offers a 
transportation benefit that exceeds Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plans coverage rules apply in this 
case. The Plan covers routine transportation when each one-way trip does not exceed 50 miles of driving 
distance.  
 
We looked at your request, the records in the case file, and the rules. In this case the requested trip is greater 
than 50 miles of driving distance. Based on this information, we decided that the Plans rules for coverage of 
routine transportation have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve 
additional miles for routine transportation beyond the Plan's 50-mile limit.
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 admission is medically necessary for you.  The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says you do not have daily skilled therapy or nursing needs. 
 
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. 
 
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 an IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee has had a long, complicated 
hospitalization and needs acute inpatient rehabilitation. 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 does 
not require an acute 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, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While the enrollee may have a need for physical 
therapy 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 an 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 the enrollee is receiving the appropriate 
inpatient acuter care and is currently unstable for transfer.  The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
enrollee exceeds the CMS criteria for an appropriate Long Term Acute Care Hospital admission. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that LTACH services are covered if they are medically 
necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the LTACH services. Our reviewer says 
that the requested LTACH care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found there are no services available at the LTACH that the enrollee requires that are not 
available at the current health care setting being offered by the health plan. 
 We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve physician's services to be provided by an out-of-network 
provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the physician's services. You say that if you do not get treatment soon your 
legs will swell up to the point where you cannot put pants on or even walk. The Plan denied your request. The 
Plan says the medical care you require can be provided by a network provider. 
 
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 services at issue in this appeal. We found no exception that would require the 
Plan to pre-approve these services. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve 
physician's services to be provided by an out-of-network provider.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the laboratory services provided on January 4, 2023, by an 
OON provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the laboratory services. You say that you are requesting reconsideration of the 
denied claim. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says these services were not authorized. 
 
Medicare rules say that plans can require enrollees to get care from network providers. The contract with the 
Plan says that the Plan has to pay for care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving emergencies, out of area urgent care and pre-approved care. 
 
The requested provider in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan had network providers 
available who could have provided the items/services at issue in this appeal. The Plan did not pre-approve the 
item/service at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay for these items/services. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the laboratory services provided on January 4, 
2023, by an OON provider.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a FreeStyle Libre 14-day sensor kit. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a FreeStyle Libre 14-day sensor kit. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says this request was not authorized because after several attempts, the Plan did not receive necessary 
information that was requested. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that for Medicare to consider coverage and payment 
for any item or service, the information submitted by the supplier or provider must corroborate the 
documentation in the beneficiary's medical documentation and confirm that Medicare coverage criteria have 
been met. 
 
 
 We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that there is insufficient 
information in the record to determine if Medicare rules for coverage of a FreeStyle Libre 14-day sensor kit 
have been met. Medical records were not provided for this case. The record shows that the Plan made multiple 
attempts to obtain this information, but it was not received. Without medical records we are unable to 
determine if the criteria for coverage are met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve 
a FreeStyle Libre 14-day sensor kit.
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 services are medically necessary to 
regain maximum function for the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's records 
do not show the need for continued treatment and care that can only be given in a hospital setting. Services 
needed may be provided safely in a lower level of 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 there are no services available at the LTACH that the enrollee requires that are not 
available at the current health care setting being offered by the health plan.  
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 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 based on Medicare guidelines, the Long-Term Acute 
Care Hospital (LTACH) services requested for the enrollee do not meet the requirements for approval. 
 
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 there are no services available at the LTACH that the enrollee requires that are not 
available at the current health care setting being offered by the health plan 
 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: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for an in-network denosumab injection 
provided on February 27, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for an in-network denosumab injection. You say that this bill is out 
of range for your medical budget and will cause a hardship. 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 20% 
coinsurance for Medicare Part B prescription drugs.  
 
The allowed amount of this drug is $1384.02, resulting in a coinsurance amount of $276.80 ($1384.02 x 20% = 
$276.80). You have been asked to pay a $276.80 coinsurance for an in-network denosumab injection. This item/service 
falls within the Medicare Part B prescription drugs 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 waive the 
copayment for an in-network denosumab injection provided on February 27, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for lab services provided on March 21, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the lab services. You say that you disagree with the denial. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says you billed with an incorrect place of service on the claim. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that, for lab services, the POS code must reflect the 
location in which the sample was taken. POS code 81 is used to describe samples taken by the laboratory 
directly.  
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of the lab services have not been met. Specifically, this claim was billed with the laboratory POS 
code. The records do not support that the sample was taken in a laboratory setting. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pay for lab services provided on March 21, 2023.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve  a high frequency chest wall oscillation device 
(HFCWOD). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve  a HFCWOD. You say that you disagree with this determination and hereby 
file this appeal. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not have one of the qualifying 
conditions and does not meet the criteria  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that high frequency chest wall oscillation devices are 
covered only for patients with cystic fibrosis, bronchiectasis, or certain neuromuscular diseases.  
The record does not show that the enrollee has cystic fibrosis, bronchiectasis, or a covered neuromuscular 
disease. This means that the enrollee does not have a medical condition for which a high frequency chest wall 
oscillation device can be covered or paid for by Medicare. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pre-approve  a high frequency chest wall oscillation device (HFCWOD).
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the enrollee meets LTACH criteria based 
on Medicare guidelines. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee is receiving appropriate in-
patient acute care and is currently unstable for transfer. 
 
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 there are no services available at the LTACH that the enrollee requires that are not 
available at the current health care setting being offered by the health plan. 
 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.