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 you disagree with the denial for the admission to an 
IRF. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says these services are not medically necessary for the enrollee.  
 
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 rehabilitation 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 the enrollee 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 
rehabilitation services 15 hours a week, under the supervision of a physician with at least 3 visits weekly to 
regain or maintain their 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 the IRF admission is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the criteria for the 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 rehabilitation 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 the enrollee would meet criteria for admission to an acute inpatient rehabilitation 
facility. There is no indication that the member 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 their 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: 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 for you to 
regain your strength. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you are not currently eligible to receive 
coverage for any additional skilled nursing care benefits in your current benefit period. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that enrollees are covered for up to 100 days of skilled care 
in a SNF in each benefit period. A benefit period begins on admission to a hospital or to SNF level of care and 
ends when the enrollee has gone 60 days in a row without inpatient hospital or SNF care.  
 
The file shows that you received 100 days of SNF care during the benefit period from March 29, 2023, through 
October 15, 2023. The Plan has covered 100 days of SNF care. 
 
 
 
 Although you may still need skilled care, the Plan is not required to pay for more than 100 days of SNF 
coverage during this benefit period. You will be eligible for a new benefit period when you have not been 
receiving care in a hospital or skilled care in a SNF for at least 60 days in a row. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care.
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 the inpatient rehabilitation facility 
services to regain independence. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the IRF services are 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 the complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not 
require an acute rehabilitation 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 the enrollee 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 
rehabilitation services 15 hours a week, under the supervision of a physician with at least 3 visits weekly to 
regain or maintain their 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Novachor. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Novachor. You say that the services are necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says medical necessity has not been established. Therefore, coverage criteria have not been 
met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that items and services that are not medically 
necessary are not covered.  
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve Novachor. Our reviewer says that the 
requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found current management has decreased the wound size from 33 cm2 to 16.9 cm2 from September 7, 
2023 to October 17, 2023, suggesting that current management is working and Nocachor is not 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 Novachor have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Novachor.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for SNF care provided on May 19, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for SNF care. You say that you are requesting reconsideration of the denied claim. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the coverage criteria has not been met. 
 
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 pay for 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 that the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) provided coverage through 
May 18, 2023. There is no evidence that you received skilled services on the appealed date of service. 
Therefore, payment for skilled services on May 19, 2023, is not supported. 
 
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 pay for SNF care provided on May 19, 2023.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve  a ventilator (E0466). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a ventilator. 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 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 ventilator. Our reviewer says that the 
services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the record indicates that the enrollee was 
successfully treated with bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP). The provided primary source 
documentation does not contain sufficient detailed information in the medical record to justify the treatment 
selected. The enrollee could be treated with a BiPAP machine with average volume-assured pressure support 
(AVAPS) capability and failure of such a device has not been documented. The plan has indicated coverage for 
such a device is available upon request. The elements of the coverage criteria are not satisfied. The requested 
service cannot be 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 a ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve  a ventilator (E0466).
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 continuation of SNF services is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says continuation of SNF services 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 clinical documentation shows that the enrollee has had acute clinical and functional 
status change thus would be expected to require continued assessment by skilled therapy and skilled nursing. 
Clinical documentation shows that the enrollee's past level of function was modified independent with mobility 
and self-care tasks. The enrollee's current level of function is supervision to independent with mobility and self-
care tasks thus appropriate daily inpatient skilled therapy goals have been met. No daily skilled nursing needs 
specified thus daily skilled services are not supported. From a practical standpoint, clinical documentation does 
not support the medical necessity for continued daily skilled services on an inpatient basis in a skilled nursing 
facility. 
 
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 right carpal tunnel release to be provided by an out-of-
network (OON) provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve right carpal tunnel release to be provided by an OON provider. You say that 
the services are necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there are in-network providers that are 
able to provide these services. Therefore, coverage criteria have not been met. 
 
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 
right carpal tunnel release to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve HDR electronic brachytherapy (0394T, 77290, 77280). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve HDR electronic brachytherapy. You say that the services are necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says medical necessity has not been established. Therefore, coverage 
criteria have not been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that items and services that are not medically 
necessary are not covered.  
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve HDR electronic brachytherapy. Our 
reviewer says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this 
case. Our physician reviewer found there are no compelling reasons offered for why stereotactic radiation 
therapy (SRT) would be needed over more standard approaches of radiation delivery. 
 We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of HDR electronic brachytherapy have not been met. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pre-approve HDR electronic brachytherapy (0394T, 77290, 77280).
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the office visit provided to the enrollee on October 4, 2022,
by an out-of-network (OON) provider.

You asked the Plan to pay for the office visit. You say that the records attached support the services provided.
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that there is no authorization on file. Maximus overturned the
Plan's denial because of a lack of information. The Plan requested a reopening and stated that these services are
not covered out-of-network. The Plan is correct in this case. The Plan has now provided the 2022 EOC to show
coverage is only permitted in network. The contract with the Plan says that the Plan has to pay for care from
out-of-network providers only in cases involving emergencies, out of area urgent care and pre-approved care.

The requested provider in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan had network providers
available who could have provided the items/services at issue in this appeal. The Plan did not pre-approve the
item/service at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay for these items/services.
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the office visit provided to the enrollee on October
4, 2022, by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you are not stable at this time and have steps going 
into your home. You also say you have limited support. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says your 
rehabilitation needs do not require an intensive team approach. Your current needs can be safely managed with 
an alternate 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 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 inpatient rehabilitation facility. 
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 inpatient rehabilitation facility.  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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve compression stockings identified with code A6530. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the compression stockings. 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 criteria for approval have not been met. 
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that compression stockings described by code A6530 are 
noncovered because they do not meet the statutory definition of a surgical dressing.  
 
Although this item may be appropriate, it does not fall into a covered benefit category and cannot be paid for 
by Medicare or the Plan. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve compression 
stockings identified with code A6530.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve foot orthotics (L3000).  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve foot orthotics. You say that due to the enrollee's biomechanical natures of 
her foot type she will need custom molded orthotics that will provide more support to her arches, relieve 
pressure from metatarsal heads, and offload plantar fascia and heel spurs and prevent them from worsening. 
You also say that the custom orthotics will likely improve the enrollee's symptoms without surgical 
intervention. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this item is not a covered benefit. 
 
Medicare rules state that supportive devices for the feet (such as orthotics) are only covered for patients with 
diabetic foot disease or for patients who wear a leg brace. The Plan follows these same rules.   
 
Records show that you do not suffer from diabetic foot disease, and you do not wear a leg brace. Although 
orthotics may be appropriate for you, neither Medicare nor the Plan provides coverage of orthotics for your 
condition. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve foot orthotics (L3000).