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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee meets IRF criteria and requires intensive 
inpatient rehabilitation with daily physician management, continuous specialized rehabilitation nursing, and 
intensive therapies to optimize mobility and strength while ensuring the restoration of functional status for a 
safe and sustainable discharge. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet 
Medicare guidelines for services in 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 that the complexity of the enrollees 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. While the enrollee may have a need for physical 
therapy 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. 
 
There is not a reasonable expectation that the enrollee will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the 
intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in an 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 an IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Sildenafil. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the medication. You say that this is the only medication that has been 
working for the ernollee. 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 Sildenafil.  
 
Benefits for the medication may be available under Medicare Part D. Contact the Plan that administers Part D 
benefits for further information concerning any benefits and appeal rights.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a pneumatic compression device (E0652) and segmental 
pneumatic appliances (E0667, E0656). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a pneumatic compression device . You say that you have lymphedema, and 
your left leg is swelling all over. Even if you are doing manual drainage, it is not enough. You feel pain and do 
not sleep very well. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the criteria as there 
is no lymphedema extending onto the chest, trunk and/or abdomen and no failed four-week trial of a basic 
pneumatic compression device of either E0650 or E0651. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules state that a PCD coded as E0652 is covered for the treatment of 
lymphedema extending onto the chest, trunk and/or abdomen after a four-week trial of conservative therapy 
demonstrating failed response to treatment with an E0650 or E0651. At least four weeks of regular, daily, 
multiple-hour home usage of the E0650 or E0651 is required. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of the PCD have not been met. Specifically, the record does not show that the enrollee had at least 
four weeks of regular, daily, multiple-hour home usage of the E0650 or E0651 after careful, in-person fitting, 
training and supervision by a technician who is skilled in and who regularly and successfully uses the appliance 
provided.  Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a pneumatic compression device 
(E0652) and segmental pneumatic appliances (E0667, E0656).
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that admission to an IRF is medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says your condition does not meet the Medicare guidelines 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 that the complexity of your nursing, medical, and rehabilitation needs does not 
require an acute 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, and an 
intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While you may have a need for physical therapy 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. 
 
There is not a reasonable expectation that you will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive 
rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF. 
 
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 an IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the acute inpatient hospital care provided from February 23, 
2023, through February 25, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for these services. You say that you are requesting a reconsideration of the Plan's 
denial for payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the acute inpatient hospital care provided was 
not medically necessary.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that inpatient hospital care is covered when the doctor 
expects the patient to need hospital care that crosses at least two midnights. In rare and unusual cases, 
consideration may be given to inpatient hospital care when the hospital stay does not cross two midnights or 
more.   
 
 
 
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 these services. Our reviewer says that the 
documentation does not support that the criteria for inpatient payment are met in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found that you presented to the emergency department (ED) with diarrhea, abdominal pain, chest 
pain, and a syncopal episode. Your blood pressure was 176/77 with other vital signs stable. You were started 
on fluids and antibiotics orally due to possible pneumonia with plans to complete a cardiac/syncope workup. 
Donepezil was suspected as the cause of symptoms so it was not given. You maintained stable vital signs 
without additional symptoms at the time of admission. Due to your stability and improvement with a negative 
workup, it was not expected that you would likely have required hospital services that would have crossed two 
midnights.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of these services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pay for the acute inpatient hospital care provided from February 23, 2023, through February 25, 2023.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you are appealing with supporting records. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the request 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 that the enrollee does not have complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. 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 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 it is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the enrollee does 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 enrollees nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The enrollee 
was admitted for a urinary tract infection and was discharged home on August 16, 2023. Medical problems are 
stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs.  
 
The enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational 
therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. 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. 
 
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 MyoPro orthosis (L8702). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a MyoPro orthosis. You say that the item is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says this item is considered experimental. 
 
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 MyoPro orthosis. Our reviewer says 
that the requested items are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found this item is considered experimental. 
 
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 MyoPro orthosis have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a MyoPro orthosis (L8702).
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the services are medically necessary due 
to the enrollee's ongoing complex medical needs. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says when you are 
ready to leave the hospital, your needs may be safely received in another setting. 
 
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 appears to be tolerating ventilator weaning. There is no evidence that the 
enrollee requires services that are not currently available. There is no advantage in transferring the enrollee to 
the LTACH. The enrollee can remain at the current acute care hospital until such time no acute services are 
required.  
 
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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for electrical stimulation provided on October 24, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for electrical stimulation. You say that the electrical stimulation was medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the use of electrostimulation alone for neuropathies 
or peripheral neuropathies caused by underlying systemic diseases, is insufficient to warrant coverage. These 
procedures are considered investigational and are not eligible for coverage for the treatment of neuropathies or 
peripheral neuropathies caused by underlying systemic diseases. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that electrical stimulation is considered investigational 
and is not eligible for coverage for the treatment of neuropathies or peripheral neuropathies caused by 
underlying systemic diseases. 
 
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 electrical stimulation. Our reviewer says that 
the requested electrical stimulation is not considered medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the 
use of electrostimulation alone for the treatment of multiple neuropathies or peripheral neuropathies caused by 
underlying systemic diseases is not considered medically reasonable and necessary. At present, the literature 
and scientific evidence supporting the use of electrostimulation alone for neuropathies or peripheral 
neuropathies caused by underlying systemic diseases, is insufficient to warrant coverage. Therefore, the 
enrollee does not meet Medicare coverage criteria for electrical stimulation treatment for their condition. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of electrical stimulation have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pay for electrical stimulation provided on October 24, 2022.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the requested LTACH admission is 
necessary for ongoing aggressive wound management and close monitoring of the enrollee's other complex 
medical conditions with an aggressive regimen of physical rehabilitation as tolerated. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says criteria for admission to an 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 that the enrollee is receiving appropriate care in the current acute care setting as 
provided by the Plan. The documentation does not support that LTACH services are medically appropriate at this time. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve LTACH services.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Trio Smart breath test (91065) to be provided by an 
out-of-network (OON) provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the Trio Smart breath test. You say that your gastrointestinal specialist is 
referring you to have this test one to confirm the diagnosis of small intestine bacterial overgrowth. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says enrollees must receive their medical services from an in-network provider 
with the exception being urgent or emergent services. Non-emergent services with non-contracted providers 
require prior authorization before services being rendered. 
 
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. The Plan has approved you to have testing 
to be done in-network. 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 the Trio Smart breath test (91065) 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 a referral for an oncologist to be provided by an out-of-
network (OON) provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a referral for an oncologist. You say that the Plan does not have providers 
with experience to treat your type of cancer. You also say you were told that your type of cancer does not 
respond to chemotherapy or radiation, and this really concerns you. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says you must receive all covered health care services from a network provider. There is appropriate care 
available within the Plan. 
 
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 referral for an oncologist to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health services provided from January 2, 2022, to 
January 27, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the home health services as billed. You say that you disagree with the denial. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the claim has not been billed with the correct admission date. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that for home health services that are continuing from 2021, a 
NOA must be submitted for the first period of care in 2022, using the first date of the period as the admission date. Subsequent claims must report this new date as the admission date in order for the claim to be matched to 
the correct NOA.  
 
We reviewed the file and the Medicare rules. We find that the admission date reported on the claim at issue 
does not match the date for the NOA which is filed for the first date in 2022 as required. Based on this 
information, we find that the Medicare rules for payment of the claim at issue have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health services provided from January 2, 2022, to 
January 27, 2022.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health services rendered on July 26, 2022, to 
August 24, 2022. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for these services. You say that you disagree with the denial. 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 July 26, 2022. The NOA was not received by the Plan until April 7, 2022. 
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 rendered on 
July 26, 2022, to August 24, 2022.