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 you are requesting an expedited appeal 
for the denial of an LTACH admission. You say the skilled nursing facility is unable to accept due to the need 
for intravenous antibiotics, expense and length of stay. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
LTACH services requested 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 the enrollee does not require services at the LTACH that are not available at the acute 
care hospital where they are currently receiving care. The Plan has approved ongoing care in the current acute 
care 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 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 hyperbaric oxygen therapy. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve hyperbaric oxygen therapy. You say that you disagree with the Plan's denial. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested services are not medically necessary. 
 The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that hyperbaric oxygen therapy is only covered for certain 
indications. 
 
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 hyperbaric oxygen therapy. Our 
reviewer says that the documentation does not support that the requested services are medically reasonable or 
necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has a history of diabetes mellitus and peripheral arterial 
disease. The enrollee has an ulcer on the right 5th toe superficial partial thickness- Grade II Wagner. The 
enrollee does not have a diagnosis/condition that meets criteria for the requested hyperbaric oxygen therapy. 
Therefore, the enrollee does not meet criteria for the requested 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 hyperbaric oxygen therapy have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve hyperbaric oxygen therapy.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a custom power mobility device to be provided by an 
out-of-network (OON) provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the power mobility device. You say that the enrollee requires a power 
mobility device to perform activities of daily living secondary to a below-knee amputation and ongoing 
progression of Charcote-Marie-Tooth disease. You say that this mobility device has been ordered through the 
enrollee's insurance almost one year ago with no progress. You also say this this should be covered and 
delivered as soon as possible. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this product can be provided 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 
a custom power mobility device to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the CardioMEMS 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 services that are considered experimental, investigational, and unproven 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 there remains a dearth of randomized, blinded clinical studies examining long-term clinical 
outcomes establishing the value of CardioMEMS in patient management. As a result, at this time the 
CardioMEMS system would not be considered medically appropriate and necessary in this patients clinical 
management.  
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 CardioMEMS device.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve medial branch blocks (MBBs) at L3 to L5 (64493, 64494). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the MBBs. You say that the enrollee has had worsening lower back pain. 
You also say that this is medically necessary for the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that 
the documentation shows the enrollee's pain could be caused by a compression fracture that is present. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that facet joint interventions are considered medically 
reasonable and necessary when certain criteria have been met. 
 
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 MBBs. Our reviewer says that the 
requested MBBs are medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the provided documentation supports 
the enrollee has facet spondylosis from L4 to S1. The reviewer found that the physical exam confirms the pain 
origin. Therefore, the reviewer found that the requested MBBs are medically reasonable and 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 MBBs have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-
approve medial branch blocks (MBBs) at L3 to L5 (64493, 64494).  
 
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: 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 are requesting reconsideration for the denial of 
a SNF admission. 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 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. Daily skilled services are not shown to be required to establish a maintenance program 
or to prevent deterioration of the enrollees condition. The enrollees care needs 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: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a computed tomography (CT) scan of the chest with 
contrast (71260). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a CT scan of the chest with contrast. You say that this is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says documentation to show medical necessity was not 
received. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that CT scans are covered only when they are 
medically necessary.  
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve a CT scan of the chest with contrast. 
Our reviewer says that the service is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the record 
provided is insufficient to establish the medical necessity of the requested service at this time. 
 
   
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of a CT scan of the chest with contrast have not been met. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a computed tomography (CT) scan of the chest with contrast 
(71260).
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 has significant weakness and needs 
aggressive therapy. You say the enrollee is medically stable for discharge to rehabilitation but not safe for 
discharge home due to their deconditioning. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the IRF services you 
are requesting 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 hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. While the 
medical record supports a need for physical or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive 
rehabilitation services. 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 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 acute IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you are requesting reconsideration of the denied 
authorization. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the admission to an IRF is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found that the enrollee does not have complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. While the 
medical record supports a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for 
intensive rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different level of care. There is 
not a reasonable expectation that the enrollee will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive 
rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Feraheme. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve Feraheme. You say that you disagree with the Plan's denial. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the requested drug does not meet step therapy criteria. 
 
Medicare covers Part B medications when they are reasonable and necessary but allows health plans to 
implement step therapy criteria. The Plan's contract indicates that it has implemented such criteria for certain 
Part B medications. 
 
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 Feraheme. Our reviewer says that the 
documentation does not support that the requested drug meets step therapy criteria. Our physician reviewer 
found the enrollee has iron deficiency anemia. The documentation does not support that the enrollee has tried 
and failed Venofer (iron sucrose). The documentation does not support that Venofer (iron sucrose) would likely 
be less effective and/or likely have adverse effects for the enrollee. Therefore, the enrollee does not meet 
criteria for the requested drug. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Feraheme have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Feraheme.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the hospital evaluation and management (EM) services 
provided on January 19, 2023 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the EM services. You say that this should be paid.  The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says this was billed with the wrong POS code.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that the POS code for services provided to a hospital 
outpatient should be the outpatient hospital POS code.  
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. This claim was billed with an inpatient POS code while the enrollee's 
stay was outpatient. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the EM services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the hospital evaluation and 
management (EM) services provided on January 19, 2023
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 by Medicare. 
 
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 patient. 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 64488 billed for date of service September 1, 
2022.   
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 64488. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the number 
of units billed exceeds the maximum allowed.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that submitted claims in which the unit of service 
exceeds the MUE value cannot be paid when the MAI value is 3, unless there is evidence justifying the excess 
units.  
 
In this case, the MUE for CPT code 64488 is 1. The MAI value for this code is 3. You billed 2 units of this 
code, exceeding the MUE. You did not provide all the required evidence showing that the excess units were 
actually provided, were correctly coded, and were medically necessary. Based on this information, we decided 
that Medicare rules for coverage of procedure code 64488 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 64488 billed for date of service September 1, 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 services are medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not need therapy or nursing services every day that are 
only on an inpatient basis in 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 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 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: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health care billed for dates of service February 4, 
2023, to February 6, 2023. You asked the Plan to pay for the billed services. You say that the NOA was billed and accepted. 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 January 5, 2023. The NOA was not received by the Plan until April 14, 
2023. 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 the home health care billed for 
dates of service February 4, 2023, to February 6, 2023.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a home ventilator, any type, used with non-invasive 
interface (E0466). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a ventilator. You say that you are requesting a review of the denial of 
coverage for the Life2000 Ventilator. This was prescribed to help manage the enrollee's complicated 
respiratory needs at home.  The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request for a home mechanical 
ventilator set in assist control (AC) mode with very low tidal volumes that could be delivered by BiPAP is not 
covered. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that ventilators may be covered when they are medically 
necessary for patients who have neuromuscular disease, thoracic restrictive diseases, and chronic respiratory 
failure due to COPD.  
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve a ventilator. Our reviewer says that the 
requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found the Life2000 system is not medically necessary. This enrollee has severe COPD with chronic 
hypercarbic respiratory failure, and lung cancer. The Life2000 system is not a true ventilator because it is not 
capable of providing full ventilatory support.  It is intended to be used during activity, and there is inadequate 
evidence that it is beneficial in the treatment of any chronic lung 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 a ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a home ventilator, any type, used with non-invasive interface (E0466).