Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) care. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you need IRF care after spinal surgery. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says that the denial of IRF care is correct. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare health plans must make reasonable and 
diligent efforts to gather and forward to the IRE information regarding its decision to deny coverage or 
payment. 
 
The Plan has not made reasonable and diligent efforts to gather and forward to us information regarding their 
decision to deny your request. The Plan did not submit supporting medical records for review. Without medical 
records, we cannot determine whether IRF care is medically necessary and reasonable for you. Therefore, the 
Plan has not shown that its decision to deny IRF care is correct and justified according to Medicare rules. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-approve inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) care.  
 
If the Plan does not agree with our decision, they can ask us to open a case again. We only open a case again 
if we believe there was a mistake or if there is new information to review. The Plan has to show us the mistake 
and/or send us the new information. This does not happen often. If we decide to open the case again, we will 
send you a letter.
Appeal type: 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 hard worker and just needs more 
therapy to get back to independence. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet 
the criteria for admission to an Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility. 
 
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. 
 
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: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve azathioprine. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the medication. You say that the enrollee has been on this medication since 
2017. 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 azathioprine.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Zoomer Electric Foldable Wheelchair. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a Zoomer Electric Foldable Wheelchair. You say that you would like a 
Zoomer wheelchair because it folds and can easily be put in the car. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says the recommended group 2 powered operated vehicle (scooter) has been approved under authorization 
ending in 2005. The Plan also says that the notes do not show that a Zoomer Electric Foldable Wheelchair is 
appropriate, so this request has been denied. 
 
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 a Zoomer Electric Foldable Wheelchair. 
Our reviewer says that a Zoomer Electric Foldable Wheelchair is not medically reasonable and necessary for 
you. Our physician reviewer found the records do not provide evidence of functional loss, but the Plan has 
approved a group 2 power wheelchair. Our reviewer also found that a foldable chair is not necessary to manage 
mobility related activities of daily living in the home. 
 
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 Zoomer Electric Foldable Wheelchair have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Zoomer Electric Foldable Wheelchair.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the high frequency chest wall oscillation system 
(E0483). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the HFCWOS. You say that the Vest is medically necessary to help manage 
their lifelong chronic lung disease. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not have a 
qualifying disease or condition and the request is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that high frequency chest wall oscillation devices are 
covered only for patients with cystic fibrosis, bronchiectasis, or certain neuromuscular diseases.  
The record does not show that the enrollee has cystic fibrosis, bronchiectasis, or a covered neuromuscular 
disease. This means that the enrollee does not have a medical condition for which a high frequency chest wall 
oscillation device can be covered or paid for by Medicare. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pre-approve the high frequency chest wall oscillation system (E0483).
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 stay is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the stay is not medically necessary based on IRF criteria. 
 
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 clinical documentation shows that the enrollee requires ongoing physical therapy 
(PT) and occupational therapy (OT): however, documentation does not show that the enrollee would require an 
intensive rehabilitation regimen.  
 
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 the genetic testing provided on January 18, 2023, billed with 
codes 81408, 81407, 81406, 81161, 81405, 81404, 81403 and 81400. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the genetic testing billed. You say that this testing was medically necessary and 
is supported in the medical record. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says panel testing should be billed 
using one CPT code on the claim. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that if one laboratory procedure evaluates multiple genes 
using a next generation sequencing (NGS) procedure, the laboratory shall report only one unit of service of one 
genomic sequencing procedure, molecular multianalyte assay, multianalyte assay with algorithmic analysis, or 
proprietary laboratory analysis code. We looked at the file and Medicare rules. This was an NGS panel that was not billed with a single panel code 
as required. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the genetic testing billed 
have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the genetic testing provided on 
January 18, 2023, billed with codes 81408, 81407, 81406, 81161, 81405, 81404, 81403 and 81400.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health services provided from December 27, 2022, 
to January 25, 2023. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for the home health services. You say that you would like the Plan to reconsider 
their denial of payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the NOA was not received timely. As 
such, this final claim was correctly denied.  
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that an NOA must be submitted within 5 days of the start of 
care date for home health services. NOAs which are received more than 30 days from the timely filing date 
result in no payment being made for the episode of care.  
 
In this case, the start of care date is December 27, 2022. The NOA was not received by the Plan until March 
13, 2023. As more than 30 days passed between the timely filing date and the NOA receipt, no payment can be 
made on this claim. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health services 
provided from December 27, 2022, to January 25, 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 you would like to request reconsideration of the 
denied authorization. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the inpatient rehabilitation facility (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 that in this case, the complexity of the enrollees 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. 
 
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 is medically necessary for the enrollee. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's records do not show complex rehabilitation needs 
that require frequent evaluation by a rehabilitation doctor and an intensive team for your 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 does not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation 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: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve home health therapy services.  
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve home health services. You say that it is felt that home health services would 
be of benefit.  The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services are not medically necessary.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that home health care services may be covered if it is 
medically necessary for the enrollee to receive skilled nursing or therapy. A doctor must certify the need for 
home health care services. 
 
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 home health services. Our reviewer 
says that the services are not medically reasonable and necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee 
has a medical history including hypertension, major depressive disorder, chronic back pain, opioid use 
disorder, and prescription medication mis-use history who was evaluated in the emergency department on May 
31, 2023, and discharged with orders for home health care. The documentation indicates the enrollee is at her 
baseline functional level and is bedbound by choice. She is noted to have possible cognitive impairment and 
depression. There are no skilled nursing needs. The enrollee has been medically stable without any recent 
exacerbations of chronic medical problems or hospitalizations.  There is no indication she has had a decline in 
physical function. The requested home health services are 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 home health services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve home health therapy services.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for anesthesia for intraoral procedures provided on 
February 7, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for anesthesia for intraoral procedures. You say that the service was medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says anesthesia for intraoral procedures is not a covered 
benefit. 
 
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. 
 
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 anesthesia 
for intraoral procedures provided on February 7, 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. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's records 
do not show that you require the intensity of IRF. Services needed may be provided safely in 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 does not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation 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 pre-approve the Prometheus IBD sgi Diagnostic test (81479). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the Prometheus IBD sgi Diagnostic test. You say that this testing is 
medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this test is not covered. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that the Prometheus IBD sgi Diagnostic test is not 
covered. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the Prometheus IBD sgi Diagnostic test have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve the Prometheus IBD sgi Diagnostic test (81479).
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve incontinence supplies.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve incontinence supplies. You say that you would like reconsideration because 
the requested incontinence supplies are medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
requested incontinence supplies are not a covered benefit 
 
The Plan covers all items that Medicare covers. Medicare rules state that incontinence supplies are not covered 
because they are hygienic items that are non-reusable.  
 
While incontinence supplies may be appropriate in this case, neither the Plan nor Medicare offers coverage of 
these items. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve incontinence supplies.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee has not yet received necessary 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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the laparoscopic cholecystectomy (47562) provided on 
January 31, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the surgical service. You say that the provider and facility are both in-network. 
You say that the billed codes are payable. You also say that the out-of-network provider was the only available 
assistant at the time of the procedure due to a network insufficiency. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says services performed by a surgical assistant are not payable. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare only pays for assistant surgery services when the 
procedure is covered for an assistant and the person who assists the surgery bears the designation of a 
physician, PA, NP, or CNS. 
 
In this case, the record does not show that you are a physician, PA, NP, or CNS. Medicare only makes payment for surgical assistant services when provided by one of these types of practitioners. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pay for the laparoscopic cholecystectomy (47562) provided on January 31, 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 the stay is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the stay is not medically necessary based on IRF criteria. 
 
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 clinical documentation shows that enrollee requires ongoing physical therapy 
(PT) and occupational therapy (OT); however, documentation does not show that the enrollee would tolerate or 
require an intensive rehabilitation regimen. Therapy notes state that the enrollee has poor baseline prior level of 
function (PLOF) and poor tolerance of therapy evaluations.  
 
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.