Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve SNF care. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that the enrollee needs the SNF to return to independent 
living. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the SNF services are 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 You do not have daily skilled nursing needs that require the specialized skill, 
knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional nurse. You do not have daily skilled therapy needs that 
require the specialized skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional therapist. You do not require 
daily skilled nursing and/or skilled therapy on an inpatient basis in an  SNF setting. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of SNF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve SNF care.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve bilateral sclerotherapy.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve bilateral sclerotherapy. You say that the provider will address the reflux 
within the straighter vessels via endovenous ablation. You say that the provider will not be performing 
sclerotherapy on vessels that do not have peripheral reflux addressed. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says that there is reflux present in the enrollee's saphenous vein that has not yet been treated. The Plan also says 
that this is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that treatments of the tributary veins will be considered 
medically necessary if saphenous reflux is not present or already successfully eliminated. 
 
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 bilateral sclerotherapy. Our reviewer 
says that the requested bilateral sclerotherapy is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the 
provided documentation does not indicate the enrollee has undergone saphenous vein reflux treatment. The 
reviewer found that the Health Plan does not provide for simultaneous saphenous reflux treatment and tributary treatment. Therefore, the reviewer found that the requested bilateral sclerotherapy is not medically reasonable 
or 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 bilateral sclerotherapy have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve bilateral sclerotherapy.
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 you. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says your 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 your 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: 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 say that you disagree with the denial 
for the admission to a LTACH. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee is receiving the proper 
care in the current facility. 
 
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 continues to receive acute care services and these have not been 
denied. The medical record does not indicate that the enrollee requires services that she is not currently 
receiving but that would be available at the LTACH facility. The elements of the coverage rules 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 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 you say that you disagree with the denial for the 
admission to an IRF. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services the enrollee needs can be 
provided safely in other settings.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found The enrollee's medical complexity does not require an acute hospital inpatient stay 
with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The enrollee does not require an intensive 
rehabilitation therapy. There is not a reasonable expectation that the enrollee will be able to benefit from the 
intensive rehabilitation 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: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for home health services provided on January 13, 2023, to 
February 2, 2023. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for home health services. You say that you disagree with the denial and have 
submitted medical records for review. 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 January 13, 2023. The NOA was not received by the Plan until June 11, 
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 home health services provided 
on January 13, 2023, to February 2, 2023.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that you are requesting an expedited appeal 
for the denial of an LTACH admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says criteria for admission to 
the LTACH have not been met. 
 
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's needs are being met in the acute care setting. A lateral transfer to the 
LTACH would not lead to any benefit. Transfer to the LTACH is not medically necessary or reasonable. 
 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: ER
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for emergency department services (procedure 99285) provided 
on July 24, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for emergency department services (procedure 99285). You say that procedure code 
99285 is appropriate based on the level of services required. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 
procedure code 99284 is more appropriate for the services rendered. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate CPT code. 
 
 In this case, the CPT Code Manual definition of code 99285 is emergency department visit for the evaluation 
and management of a patient, which requires a medically appropriate history and/or examination and high level 
of medical decision making. 
 
We asked our coder to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to determine if the 
Plan was correct in denying the request to pay for emergency department services (procedure 99285). Our 
reviewer says that the services at issue in this case were not supported by the medical records. Our reviewer 
found that the enrollee was seen for left upper extremity pain following a trip-and-fall. Medical records show 
the enrollee was found to have a humeral head fracture and was discharged. The medical decision making was 
not of high complexity; Therefore, the billing of procedure code 99285 is not supported. 
 
We looked at this coder's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of emergency department services (procedure 99285) have not been met. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for emergency department services (procedure 99285) 
provided on July 24, 2023.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve home health services. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve home health services. You say that the requested home health services are 
necessary because you are going home after surgery to rehabilitate. 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 that there is 
insufficient documentation to show that home health services are required and being provided to the enrollee. 
Home health aide services may only be provided in conjunction with home health services and must be 
necessary to assist in the enrollees treatment. The requested home health aide services are not shown to be 
medically necessary, reasonable, or coverable. 
 
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 services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a pneumatic compressor device (E0652) and a 
segmental pneumatic appliance for use with pneumatic compressor, full arm (E0668) to be provided by an out-
of-network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a pneumatic compressor device and a garment. You say that the in-network 
provider does not have the items being requested. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee 
must use network providers to get her medical care and services. 
 
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 
a pneumatic compressor device (E0652) and a segmental pneumatic appliance for use with pneumatic 
compressor, full arm (E0668) 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 (SIJ) radiofrequency ablation (RFA) 
(27279). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the RFA. You say that the enrollee meets the coverage criteria for this 
service. You also say that it is a Medicare-approved procedure. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 
there has been no recent documentation of x-rays done on the SI joint or hip joint to exclude SI fracture, 
destructive lesions (tumor, infection), or inflammatory arthropathy. The Plan also says that the clinical value 
and effectiveness of a minimally invasive percutaneous sacroiliac (SI) fusion in the setting of SI joint pain and 
lumbar spinal stenosis have not been demonstrated in the peer-reviewed literature. 
 
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 RFA. Our reviewer says that the requested sacroiliac joint RFA is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found this procedure is experimental as additional research is needed. Therefore, the reviewer found 
that the requested sacroiliac joint RFA is not medically reasonable or 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 the RFA have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve sacroiliac joint (SIJ) radiofrequency ablation (RFA) (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 IRF care is necessary. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says IRF care is not medically necessary.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of the patient's nursing, medical, and rehabilitation needs do not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The patient 
does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and 
an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. There is not a reasonable expectation that this patient will be able 
to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF. While 
the medical records support 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an automatic blood pressure monitor (A4670). 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve an automatic blood pressure monitor. You say that you disagree with the 
denial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested item is not covered by Medicare or the Plan. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare covers home blood pressure monitors only 
for enrollees who are on home dialysis, or those who meet the criteria for white coat hypertension and require 
ABPM to confirm a diagnosis of hypertension.  
 
The records do not show that this monitor is requested in the setting of home dialysis services, or that this 
request is for evaluation of suspected white coat hypertension. Although monitoring blood pressure in the home 
may be appropriate in this case, neither Medicare nor the Plan provides coverage of this item in this situation. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an automatic blood pressure monitor 
(A4670).
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 daily intensive rehab services 
for strengthening and to return to their baseline. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does 
not meet the criteria for admission to an IRF.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies. While the medical 
record supports a need for physical or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive 
rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different level of care.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you may loose your leg or life due to the infection if 
you can't get the help you need. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you do not meet the requirements 
for inpatient rehabilitation placement.  
 
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 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.