Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a crown (D2750) and a core buildup (D2950). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the dental services. You say that the services are necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says this is excluded from coverage when done if the loss of tooth structure is due to 
attrition, abrasion, abfraction or erosion.  
 
Medicare generally does not cover dental services. However, the Plan offers a dental benefit that exceeds 
Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plans coverage rules apply in this case. The Plan covers the dental 
services when the services are medically necessary and reasonable.  
 
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 dental services. Our physician reviewer found the documentation provided was not sufficient to determine is the treatments are medically 
necessary. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
the Plan's rules for coverage of the dental services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a crown (D2750) and a core buildup (D2950).
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Stelara. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the medication. You say that you are appealing with supporting records. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says that step therapy requirements have not been met. 
 
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 the medication. Our reviewer says that 
that the criteria for coverage of Stelara have not been met. Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee 
reported improvement in symptoms on adalimumab, but at least two of the required drugs must be trialed 
before Stelara will be approved. Based on the medical record and the Medicare-approved major drug 
compendia there is no indication that the plan's required drugs would likely be less effective or likely have 
adverse effects for the 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 the medication have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve Stelara.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for lab services provided on December 19, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the lab services. You say that you have provided medical records to support 
payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you billed with an incorrect place of service on the 
claim. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that, for lab services, the POS code must reflect the 
location in which the sample was taken. POS code 81 is used to describe samples taken by the laboratory directly. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of the lab services have not been met. Specifically, this claim was billed with the laboratory POS 
code. The records do not support that the sample was taken in a laboratory setting. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pay for lab services provided on December 19, 2022.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a ventilator. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a ventilator. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you have not 
failed the use of a BiPAP.  
 
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 physician reviewer 
found that you have chronic respiratory failure consequent to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.  The provided records document that the home ventilator is being requested for a use which could be provided 
by a BiPAP device. The records do not document trial and failure of a BiPAP device with advanced volume 
assured pressure support (AVAPS) and a back-up rate. Therefore, the request is not medically 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 a ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a ventilator.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee will benefit from inpatient rehab that 
cannot be provided in a lower level of care. 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 does 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: 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 
reconsideration stating the enrollee will require an LTACH level of care and is stable for discharge. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the guidelines for care in 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 there is no evidence that the enrollee requires services that are not currently 
available at the acute care setting. The enrollee can remain at the current acute care hospital until such time no 
acute services are required. The enrollee can then be transferred/discharged to a lower level of care for any 
ongoing long term care needs. 
 
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. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the clinical 
information submitted did not establish medical necessity. 
 
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 enrollee 
does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and 
an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. Our reviewer found that 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. Our physician reviewer also found that 
there is not a reasonable expectation that this 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.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a special group 3 power wheelchair with features. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the services. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says there is no medical need for a single power option included with the power wheelchair. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that a PMD will not be covered if the patient does not 
have mobility deficit that impairs their participation in MRADLs, the patients condition can be ameliorated by 
a walker, cane or manual wheelchair, or the patient is not capable of safely operating the requested PMD.  
 
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 services. Our reviewer says that the 
requested services are not medically reasonable or necessary. Our physician reviewer found that there is no 
high risk of skin breakdown. There are no current skin issues. There is no evidence of a need for a catheter, or 
presence of spasticity requiring positioning to manage.  
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 services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a special group 3 power wheelchair with features.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) (93307). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the service. You say that the service is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the service is not medically necessary. 
 
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 service. Our reviewer says that the 
requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found at issue is the medical necessity of a repeat TTE, in the absence of any apparent significant 
change in the enrollees clinical condition. The documentation would not point to a change in status that would 
support the medical necessity of a repeat TTE at this time. Clinical guidelines do not support repeating a TTE 
following a relatively recent TTE, with no intervening change in clinical status or new signs, symptoms or physical findings. In summary, there is no supportive evidence for the medical necessity of repeat TTE in this 
enrollees 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 service have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) (93307).
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve implantation of a Minuteman device (22612, 22840). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve implantation of a Minuteman device. You say that the requested services are 
a medical necessity for the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested services are 
experimental/investigational. 
 
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 a Minuteman device. 
Our reviewer says that the requested services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this 
case. Our physician reviewer found that the Minuteman device is experimental. More research is needed to 
demonstrate its safety and efficacy. 
 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 a Minuteman device have not been met. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan does not have to pre-approve implantation of a Minuteman device (22612, 22840).
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for inpatient hospital services provided on November 25, 2021 
to November 27, 2021, at the Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) originally billed. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the inpatient hospital services at the DRG originally billed. You say that this 
service was medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says DRG code 418 better describes 
the services at issue. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report inpatient hospital services with the appropriate DRG, which is based, in part, on the 
reported principal and secondary diagnosis codes.   
 
In this case, you billed the inpatient services provided with DRG 417. 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 pay for the inpatient hospital services at the DRG originally billed. Our reviewer says 
that the records do not support the billed DRG. Our physician reviewer found upon review of the 
documentation provided, code K80.63 was not supported as the principal diagnosis. Without the diagnosis 
supported, the billed DRG code is not supported.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided the 
medical records do not substantiate the DRG as billed. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay 
for inpatient hospital services provided on November 25, 2021 to November 27, 2021, at the Diagnosis Related 
Group (DRG) originally billed.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve neuromuscular stimulator supplies to be provided by an 
out-of-network (OON) provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve neuromuscular stimulator supplies. You say that this is only available out-
of-network. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this is available 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 
neuromuscular stimulator supplies 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 sacroiliac joint fusion (27279). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve sacroiliac joint fusion. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the brand name of the device has not been provided. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that minimally-invasive surgical (MIS) fusion of the 
sacroiliac (SI) joint is considered medically necessary when all of the criteria listed in the rules section are 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 sacroiliac joint fusion. Our reviewer 
says that the requirements for coverage of sacroiliac joint fusion have not been met. Our physician reviewer 
found the records show that the enrollee has degenerative back pain. There is no sacroiliac joint instability, 
fracture, or lesion. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of sacroiliac joint fusion have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve sacroiliac joint fusion (27279).
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 intensive inpatient rehabilitation 
with daily physician management, 24-hour specialized rehabilitation nursing, and intensive therapies to 
optimize mobility and strength while ensuring the restoration of functional status fora safe and sustainable 
discharge. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet all 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 does not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The enrollee 
does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and 
an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. Our reviewer found that 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. Our physician reviewer also found that 
there is not a reasonable expectation that this 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.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a CardioMEMS HF system (33289, C2624). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a CardioMEMS HF system. You say that the CardioMEMS implant is 
medically reasonable and necessary and as such this service should receive prior authorization of coverage and 
payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the CardioMEMS device has been determined to be of 
uncertain value in the most recent 2022 acc/aha guidelines and carries a risk of significant complications 
including death and severe pulmonary artery injury. 
 
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 a CardioMEMS HF system. Our 
reviewer says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this 
case. Our physician reviewer found the CardioMEMS device was approved by the FDA in 2014 and consists of 
a sensor device placed in the pulmonary artery to allow measurement of pulmonary artery pressure in the 
management of enrollees with CHF. The clinical study on which FDA approval was based showed improved 
clinical outcomes and decreased hospitalizations in enrollees in whom the CardioMEMS system was 
implanted, reflecting an enrollee population with preserved ejection fraction and was somewhat limited in 
scope. Subsequent follow-up studies remain encouraging and suggest an improvement in heart failure 
symptoms with the use of the device. In addition, published expert opinion in the cardiology literature is 
supportive of the clinical usefulness of CardioMEMS. Nonetheless, there remains a dearth of randomized, 
blinded clinical studies examining long-term clinical outcomes establishing the value of CardioMEMS in 
enrollee management. As a result, at this time the CardioMEMS system would not be considered medically 
appropriate and necessary in this enrollee's 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 a CardioMEMS HF system have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve a CardioMEMS HF system (33289, C2624).