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 requires IRF services to regain their 
prior level of functioning and strength. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request 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 enrollees medical problems are stable and there are no complex nursing or 
rehabilitation needs. 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 inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the services are medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the criteria 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 the enrollee is medically stable and does not need physician's supervision 3 times a 
week in an IRF. There are no acute rehab nursing needs documented. At the current functional level with low 
endurance, the enrollee will not be able to tolerate and does not need intensive therapies consisting of at least 3 
hours of therapy per day at least 5 days per week with multidisciplinary approach in an IRF. The complexity of 
the enrollee's medical, rehab, and nursing needs (combined complexity) does not require an acute hospital 
inpatient rehab stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitative 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 home ventilator system. 
 
  You asked the Plan to pre-approve a home ventilator system. You say that the enrollee meets the qualifications 
for a at home ventilator. You say that a CPAP will not work, and the requested BiPAP keeps being denied. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says a home ventilator is not medically necessary for this patient because 
their needs can be met with an alternative device such as a BiPAP device with average volume-assured 
pressure support (AVAPS).  
 
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. Claims for ventilators used to provide CPAP or bi-level CPAP therapy will be denied as 
not reasonable and 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 home ventilator system. Our reviewer 
says that a home ventilator system is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the patient 
has interstitial lung disease (ILD) not COPD, and subsequently has progressed to chronic respiratory failure 
with recent hospitalization and intubation requiring mechanical ventilatory support for several days. Also, the 
patient was extubated and required nocturnal BiPAP, which was tolerated. Additionally, there is also no 
indication for a home ventilator at this junction or progression of 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 home ventilator system have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve a home ventilator system.
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 has two antibiotics they will 
need for a while and wound care for four separate wounds. 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 appears to be improving with current treatment and should only 
require short-term additional acute care services that can safely be provided at the current facility. There are no 
services at the LTACH that the enrollee requires that are not already available and covered at the current 
facility. Transfer to the LTACH would not be clinically advantageous and completion of treatment at the 
current facility is recommended. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services.
Appeal type: 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 services are necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says based on the documentation provided, coverage criteria has not been met. 
 
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 enrollees nursing medical and rehabilitation needs does not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The enrollee 
has had a decline from her baseline level of function and may benefit from occupational and physical therapies 
as well as supervision and assistance, but she does not require the intensity of therapies provided on acute 
inpatient rehabilitation. 
 
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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Minuteman interspinous device. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Minuteman. You say that supporting documentation demonstrates medical 
necessity. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the clinical value and effectiveness of Minuteman in 
this setting have not been established. 
 
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 Minuteman. Our reviewer says that the 
requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found the Minuteman device is experimental. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Minuteman have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve Minuteman interspinous device.
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 would like to request reconsideration of the 
denied claim and that the services requested are medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says the skilled nursing facility (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 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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a facet joint radiofrequency ablation (RFA). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a facet joint RFA. You say that the services are necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says based on the documentation provided, coverage criteria has not been met. 
 The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that the thermal radiofrequency destruction of cervical, 
thoracic, or lumbar paravertebral facet joint (medial branch) nerves are considered medically reasonable and 
necessary for patients who meet certain criteria. 
 
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 RFA. Our reviewer says that the 
services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found in this case, there is no documentation 
indicating that the medial branch blocks the enrollee received provided 80% sustained relief of primary (index) 
pain (with the duration of relief being consistent with the agent used). The review has determined that the 
enrollee does not meet the coverage criteria detailed in the LCD. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of RFA have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pre-approve a facet joint radiofrequency ablation (RFA).
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Nebivolol. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the medication. You say that the medication is necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the medication is not covered as a medical benefit under the Plan. 
 
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. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Nebivolol.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Group 3 power wheelchair (PWC) with multiple 
power options coded as K0861. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the K0861 PWC. You say that the requested type of PWC with accessories 
is medically necessary for the enrollee's condition.  The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee 
does not require the Group 3 PWC based on coverage criteria.  
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that a Group 3 PWC with multiple power options may 
only be covered when the enrollee meets criteria for a power tilt and power recline seating system. 
 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 K0861 PWC. Our reviewer says 
that the medical necessity criteria for the requested PWC base are not met. Our physician reviewer found the 
patient does have a Group 3 qualifying neurologic diagnosis, but the physician documentation does not reveal 
that the patient is at high risk for development of a pressure ulcer, utilizes intermittent catheterization for 
bladder management, or needs a power seating system to manage increased tone or spasticity. There is no 
evidence of a need for a ventilator on a wheelchair. As such, the PWC base is not covered.  
 
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 K0861 PWC have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a Group 3 power wheelchair (PWC) with multiple power options coded as K0861.
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 the enrollee had a long and complicated 
hospitalization and will require an LTACH level of care. You would like reconsideration based on the records 
submitted. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet all the requirements for 
admission to an LTACH. 
 
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 appears to be improving with current treatment and should only 
require short-term additional acute care services that can safely be provided at the current facility until more stable and appropriate for a lower level of care. There are no services at the LTACH that the enrollee requires 
that are not already available and covered at the current facility. Transfer to the LTACH is not medically 
necessary as it would not be clinically advantageous.  
 
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: 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 
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 is receiving all indicated care at the approved acute facility. There are no 
clear therapies that the enrollee would receive at the LTACH. 
 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 and their family disagree with the 
decision to deny inpatient rehabilitation and are requesting a fast appeal. The Plan denied your request. The 
Plan says an IRF is not supported based on the records received.  
 
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 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.  
 
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: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure codes 87798 and 83520 provided on December 
16, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure codes 87798 and 83520. You say that these services were necessary 
and are supported in the medical record. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says these codes are not 
supported as billed, as there is insufficient information in the records to clarify these "not otherwise specified" 
services. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate CPT code. 
 
We asked our coder to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to determine if the 
Plan was correct in denying the request to pay for procedure codes 87798 and 83520. Our reviewer says that 
these codes are not supported in the records provided. Our reviewer found the records do not support the use of procedure code 83520, as the otherwise not specified labs were not clarified to be able to support this 
procedure. The records also do not support the use of code 87798, as the lab requisite does not specify why this 
code was used. 
 
We looked at this coder's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of procedure codes 87798 and 83520 have not been met. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure codes 87798 and 83520 provided on December 16, 2022.
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 the care and services required by the 
enrollee exceed the clinical capabilities of all lower levels of care in the geographical region. You would like 
reconsideration based on the records submitted. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does 
not meet the guidelines for LTACH services.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that LTACH services are covered if they are medically 
necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the LTACH services. Our reviewer says 
that the requested LTACH care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found that there is no documentation provided indicating the medical necessity for 
admission to an LTACH. 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. 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 LTACH services.