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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that LTACH care is necessary for a 
successful recovery. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee is not medically stable for an 
LTACH 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 that the enrollee is receiving appropriate care at the present acute care hospital. The 
enrollee does not require services at the LTACH that are not available at the acute care hospital where the 
enrollee is currently receiving 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 LTACH services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve implantation of a cardiac contractility modulation 
(CCM) system (Optimizer Smart device). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve implantation of an Optimizer Smart device. You say that the services are 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says medical necessity has not been established. Therefore, 
coverage criteria have not been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that items and services that are not medically 
necessary are not covered.  
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve implantation of an Optimizer Smart 
device. Our reviewer says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and 
necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found while the clinical studies led to FDA approval in 2019, 
CCM remains the subject of multiple studies examining long-term efficacy, as well as randomized, controlled, double-blinded trials to quantify clinical efficacy. Until such statistically rigorous studies are completed, it is 
premature to presume clinical outcomes and benefit. At the current time, the CCM system would not be 
considered to be medically necessary in this enrollee. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of implantation of an Optimizer Smart device have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve implantation of a cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) 
system (Optimizer Smart device).
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Prolia. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Prolia. You say that it is medically necessary in treating other specified 
disorders of bone density and structure unspecified site. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the use of 
this drug is not reasonable and necessary. 
 
The rules say that Medicare may cover a drug or biological if it is safe and effective and otherwise reasonable 
and necessary. You can find this rule in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Internet Only 
Manual, Publication 100-02, Medicare Benefit Policy Manual, Chapter 15, Section 50.4.1. 
 
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 Prolia. Our reviewer says that the use of 
this drug is not reasonable and necessary. Our physician reviewer found the literature does not support use in 
metastatic disease. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Prolia have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pre-approve Prolia.
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 the enrollee needs SNF care as they are unable to 
return home yet. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee is at their baseline level of function. 
 
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 the enrollee does not require daily skilled nursing or skilled therapy services. The 
enrollee does not have any parental medications, complex wound care, or nutrition given via a feeding tube. 
The enrollee's function is at or near her prior level of function and she can be discharged to a lower level of 
care for further services. 
 
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: ER
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the self-administered drugs or waive the copayment for the 
emergency room and observation services provided on September 7, 2023, and September 8, 2023. 
 
  You asked the Plan to pay for the self-administered drugs and to waive the copayment for the emergency room 
and observation services. You say that you would like this claim to be reprocessed and paid. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the self-administered drugs are not covered by Medicare. The Plan also says this 
cost sharing was charged correctly. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare Part B generally does not pay for self-
administered drugs. The self-administered drugs requested here are not among the types which are covered by 
Medicare Part B. 
 
The rules also 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 $298 copayment for outpatient hospital observation care.  
 
You have been asked to pay $186.73 for the emergency room and observation services which is less than the 
standard $298 copayment for outpatient hospital observation care. 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 pay for the self-administered drugs or waive the 
copayment for the emergency room and observation services provided on September 7, 2023, and September 8, 
2023.  
 
Benefits for the self-administered drugs may be available under Medicare Part D. Contact the Plan that 
administers Part D benefits for further information concerning any benefits and appeal rights.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure codes 99426 and 99427 provided on September 
20, 2023, by an out-of-network (OON) provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure codes 99426 and 99427. You say that you would like the Plan to 
reconsider their denial of payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services provided were 
neither emergent nor urgent and prior authorization was not obtained to provide OON care. 
 
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 procedure codes 99426 and 99427 provided on 
September 20, 2023, 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 you need rehabilitation now so you can start moving 
around before losing any more muscle mass. You say your doctor said rehabilitation would greatly benefit you. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you do not meet Medicare guidelines for services in 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 the complexity of your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not require an 
acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. You do not require 
treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical or occupational therapy, at an intensive rehabilitation 
therapy program. You continue to have a need for skilled therapy however, the documentation doesnt support 
that you meet criteria for admission to an acute inpatient rehabilitation facility. There is no indication that you 
would require skilled rehabilitation in an IRF, participating in rehabilitation services 15 hours a week, under 
the supervision of a physician with at least three visits weekly to regain or maintain your functional status. You 
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: SNF
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that the enrollee is very worried and concerned with 
current health and the physician is worried that not getting skilled nursing could be detrimental to the enrollee's 
health. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the additional information available, the enrollee does 
not meet the criteria for admission to a SNF. 
 
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 considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee requires the level of observation and treatment provided in terms of 
physician oversight and skilled nursing care. The enrollee was receiving home health services at baseline and 
was requiring minimal assistance with mobility and daily activities and currently requiring maximum 
assistance to being dependent with mobility and daily activities. The enrollee's level of function has declined 
and would benefit from physical and occupational therapies. 
 
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 been met. The Plan must continue coverage for the SNF skilled 
service until such time as the enrollee no longer needs the service and proper notice has been issued, or the 
100-day Medicare benefit is exhausted. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-approve skilled nursing 
facility (SNF) care.  
 
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 rendered from May 19, 2022, to 
June 6, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for these services. You say that you disagree with the denial. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the claim was not billed correctly. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that where required by law or regulation, report the Federal 
Information Processing Standards (FIPS) State and County Code of the place of residence where the home 
health service is delivered with code 85. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The file shows that the claim was not billed with the required FIPS 
code. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of these services have not been 
met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health services rendered from May 
19, 2022, to June 6, 2022.
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 the enrollee requires monitoring of their respiratory 
and cardiac status and also needs assistance with their mobility and gait. The Plan denied your request. The 
Plan says the SNF services requested do not meet the requirements for approval. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for care in a SNF when the four factors 
listed in the Medicare rules section are met. Custodial care is not covered. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve SNF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested SNF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee does not have daily skilled nursing needs that require the specialized 
skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional nurse. The enrollee does not have daily skilled therapy 
needs that require the specialized skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional therapist. The 
enrollee does 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: 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 the enrollee. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the records do not show the enrollee needs daily skilled services 
that can be provided only on an inpatient basis in a SNF. The Plan says services required can safely be received 
at a different setting, at home with home health, in residential care, or home with close follow-up with a 
physician. 
 
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 the enrollee does not have daily skilled nursing needs that require the specialized 
skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional nurse. The enrollee does not have daily skilled therapy 
needs that require the specialized skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional therapist. The 
enrollee does 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for chiropractic services provided on April 19, 2022, to October 
28, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for chiropractic services. You say that you are requesting reconsideration for the 
denied claim. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested services are not covered by your Plan 
benefits. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that the only chiropractic service Medicare covers is 
manual manipulation of the spine to correct a subluxation.  
 
The records show that the service at issue is not manual manipulation of the spine. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pay for chiropractic services provided on April 19, 2022, to October 28, 2022.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the Guardant Reveal testing (81479) provided on September 
28, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the Guardant Reveal testing. You say that you would like the Plan to reconsider 
their denial of payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this test has not met Medicare criteria for 
coverage. 
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that for molecular diagnostic tests, such as the test at issue, 
the MolDX program requires these tests to be reviewed to determine whether Medicare reasonable and 
necessary requirements are met. When such review is complete, the test is assigned a unique identifier and the 
coverage status is listed in the DEXTM Diagnostics Exchange. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. This test is listed in the DEX database as non-covered. This 
determination was made and is specific to the test at issue. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the Guardant Reveal testing have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pay for the Guardant Reveal testing (81479) provided on September 28, 2023.
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 these services are medically necessary 
for the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee is receiving the proper medical care 
in their current setting. 
 
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 health care setting. The requested LTACH services are not medically necessary, reasonable, 
and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee and able to be furnished safely and effectively only on an inpatient basis. 
 
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 IRF services. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the requirements for an 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 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 patient was 
admitted for encephalopathy and end stage renal disease. 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 the enrollee will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive 
rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.