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 the enrollee currently meets LTACH 
admission criteria under CMS guidelines. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee is receiving 
appropriate in-patient acute care and does not require transfer to a Long-Term Acute Care Hospital (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 the enrollee is receiving appropriate care in current acute care setting as provided by 
the Plan. Documentation does not support that LTACH services are medically appropriate 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 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 is a high fall risk, needs monitoring and 
therapy to get back to being independent again. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's 
condition does not meet all of the requirements for inpatient rehabilitation admission. The Plan says services 
may be provided at 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 do not 
require an acute rehab hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The 
enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational 
therapy, at an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. The enrollee continues to have a need for skilled 
therapy with ongoing safety concerns and a potential for functional improvement however, the documentation 
does not support that she would meet criteria for admission to an acute IRF. There is no indication that the 
enrollee would require skilled rehabilitation in an IRF, participating in rehab services 15 hours a week, under 
the supervision of a physician with at least 3 visits weekly to regain or maintain her functional status.  The 
enrollee can receive further services at a lower level of care.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: 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 have been been told by members of your care 
team that you need a higher level of care than a skilled nursing facility. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says your current medical and rehabilitation needs are not of the intensity and complexity that you must receive 
rehabilitation therapies 3 hours per day at least 5 days per week in a hospital setting.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section.  
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found that the complexity of your nursing, medical, and rehabilitation needs do not require 
an acute rehabilitation hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. You do 
not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, at an 
intensive rehabilitation therapy program. There is not a reasonable expectation that you will be able to fully 
participate in and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF. You continue to 
have a need for skilled therapy with ongoing safety concerns and a potential for functional improvement. 
However, the documentation does not support that you would meet criteria for admission to an IRF.  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 3 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: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee needs this level of care. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says medical records do not support the need for an IRF admission and, the enrollee 
needs can be provided at another setting.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not 
require an acute rehab hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The 
enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational 
therapy, at an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. The enrollee continues to have a need for skilled 
therapy with ongoing safety concerns and a potential for functional improvement; however, the documentation 
doesnt support that she would meet criteria for admission to an acute inpatient rehabilitation facility.  There is 
no indication that the enrollee would require skilled rehabilitation in an IRF, participating in rehab services 15 
hours a week, under the supervision of a physician with at least 3 visits weekly to regain or maintain her 
functional status.  
 
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: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the adjunctive pre-diagnostic test (D0431), the core buildup 
(D2950) for tooth #30, the pulp cap (D3120) for tooth #30, the delivery of agents (D4381), the gingival 
irrigation (D4921), the medicaments (D9630), and the external bleaching (D9972) provided on June 5, 2023, 
June 7, 2023, June 28, 2023, and July 19, 2023. 

You asked the Plan to pay for the dental services. You say that you are disabled, and you would like the Plan to 
cover the dental services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the denial of payment for these services 
is correct, because the adjunctive pre-diagnostic test, the core buildup, the pulp cap, the delivery of agents, the 
gingival irrigation, the medicaments, and the external bleaching are not covered by the Plan. 
 
Medicare generally does not cover dental services. However, the Plan offers a dental benefit that exceeds 
Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plan's coverage rules apply in this case. 
 
Though the Plan offers a dental benefit in excess of Medicare coverage, the requested items or services are not 
among those covered under this benefit. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the 
adjunctive pre-diagnostic test (D0431), the core buildup (D2950) for tooth #30, the pulp cap (D3120) for tooth 
#30, the delivery of agents (D4381), the gingival irrigation (D4921), the medicaments (D9630), and the 
external bleaching (D9972) provided on June 5, 2023, June 7, 2023, June 28, 2023, and July 19, 2023.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that these services are medically necessary for the 
enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says these services can be provided to the enrollee in an 
alternate setting.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not 
require an acute rehab hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The 
enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational 
therapy, at an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. The enrollee continues to have a need for skilled 
therapy with ongoing safety concerns and a potential for functional improvement however, the documentation 
does not support that she would meet criteria for admission to an acute IRF. There is no indication that the 
enrollee would require skilled rehabilitation in an IRF, participating in rehab services 15 hours a week, under 
the supervision of a physician with at least 3 visits weekly to regain or maintain her functional status.  The 
enrollee can receive further services at a lower level of care.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you are requesting reconsideration for the denial of 
an IRF admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says based on Medicare guidelines, the IRF services 
requested do not meet the requirements for approval.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not require an 
acute rehab hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. You do not require 
treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, at an intensive 
rehabilitation therapy program. There is not a reasonable expectation that you will be able to fully participate in 
and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF. You continue to have a need 
for skilled therapy with ongoing safety concerns and a potential for functional improvement however, the 
documentation does not support that you would meet criteria for admission to an acute IRF. There is no 
indication that you would require skilled rehabilitation in an IRF, participating in rehab services 15 hours a 
week, under the supervision of a physician with at least 3 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: 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 admission to an IRF is medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not have a medical reason 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 do not 
require an acute rehab hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The 
enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational 
therapy, at an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. 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 
inpatient rehabilitation facility.  The enrollee continues to have a need for skilled therapy with ongoing safety 
concerns and a potential for functional improvement however, the documentation does not support that he 
would meet criteria for admission to an acute IRF. There is no indication that the enrollee would require skilled 
rehabilitation in an IRF, participating in rehab services 15 hours a week, under the supervision of a physician 
with at least 3 visits weekly to regain or maintain his functional status.  The enrollee can receive further 
services at a lower level of care.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the refraction provided on June 19, 2023. 
  
You asked the Plan to pay for the refraction. You say that the service should be covered because it is a part of 
your yearly follow-up for a vision problem. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the service is not a 
covered benefit. 
 
Medicare generally does not cover routine vision and eyewear services. However, the Plan offers a routine 
vision and eyewear benefit that exceeds Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plan's coverage rules apply in 
this case. The Plan covers these services when received during a routine eye examination. 
 
We looked at the file and the Plan's rules. Specifically, the refraction was provided during a medical eye 
examination. Based on this information, we decided that the Plan's rules for coverage of the refraction have not 
been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the refraction provided on June 19, 
2023.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Leqembi. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Leqembi. 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 monoclonal antibodies directed against amyloid for 
the treatment of AD is covered under certain circumstances. 
 
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 Leqembi. Our reviewer says that the 
services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the record provided does not include 
documentation of the enrollee's ApoE e4 allele status as required by the Food and Drug Administration label. 
The record provided does not document that the enrollee is participating in a CMS-approved prospective 
comparative study such as an FDA approved randomized controlled trial, CMS-approved studies, or studies 
supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The elements of the coverage criteria are not 
satisfied. The requested service is not 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 Leqembi have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Leqembi.
Appeal type: Outpatient Therapies
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve physical therapy to be provided by an out-of-network 
provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve physical therapy to be provided by an out-of-network provider. You say that 
the services are medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says a network provider can care 
for this medical problem. 
 
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 physical 
therapy to be provided by an out-of-network provider.
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 has been using and 
benefiting from the current ventilator. You say that the enrollee uses it almost all day long and is finally able to 
complete their activities of daily living without becoming short of breath on exertion. 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 the criteria for coverage have not been met. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has end stage 
COPD and is on a home ventilator with the Trilogy system. To change systems is a unilateral change and will 
not improve or change the enrollee's outcome. The Trilogy system should be continued and there is no clear 
indication for Life 2000. 
 
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: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the respiratory PCR panel (87798 x12) provided March 8, 
2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the laboratory testing. You say that please review the submitted medical records 
and reprocess this claim for payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says charges for services or 
supplies considered to be experimental or investigational are excluded from coverage. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that items and services that are not medically 
necessary are not covered.  
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Panels with more than 5 respiratory pathogens performed in the Part 
B outpatient setting are considered not reasonable and necessary. This panel tested for 27 pathogens. A 
Respiratory pathogen panel test must not be unbundled and billed as individual components regardless of the 
fact that the panel reports multiple individual pathogens and/or targets. Based on this information, we decided 
that Medicare rules for coverage of the laboratory testing have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pay for the respiratory PCR panel (87798 x12) provided March 8, 2023.