Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the home ventilator (E0466). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the home ventilator (E0466). You say that the ventilator is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the ventilator is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that ventilators may be covered when they are medically 
necessary for patients who have neuromuscular disease, thoracic restrictive diseases, and chronic respiratory 
failure due to COPD. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the home ventilator (E0466). Our 
physician reviewer found the request for a non-invasive ventilator (NIV) is not medically necessary because the documentation does not support that this device meets but does not exceed your need. The documentation does 
not support that the use a bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) device would not meet the medical needs 
since it was used in the hospital with plans to continue at discharge. Further, there is no documentation that 
BiPAP with average volume-assured pressure support (AVAPS) has been found to be ineffective. The review 
has determined that you have chronic respiratory failure consequent to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 
The documentation in the medical record does not support that the ventilator at issue is medically necessary 
and reasonable for you. 
 
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 home ventilator (E0466) have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve the home ventilator (E0466).
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health services provided from October 4, 2022, to 
October 31, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the home health services as billed. You say that the NOA was submitted timely. 
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 October 4, 2022, to 
October 31, 2022.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the home ventilator (E0466). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the home ventilator. You say that the ventilator is medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the ventilator is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that ventilators may be covered when they are medically 
necessary for patients who have neuromuscular disease, thoracic restrictive diseases, and chronic respiratory 
failure due to COPD. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the home ventilator. Our physician 
reviewer found the record indicates that the enrollee has chronic hypoxic and hypercapnic respiratory failure from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 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 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 the home ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve the home ventilator (E0466).
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for a SNF stay provided from December 1, 
2022, to December 22, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for a SNF stay. You say that you met your maximum out-of-pocket 
and should not have a copayment applied. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this cost sharing was 
charged correctly. 
 
 The rules say a plan must disclose to its enrollees in clear, accurate terms all cost sharing information (such as 
copayments, deductibles and coinsurance). Your contract with the Plan clearly says that you must pay $0 
copayment for days 1- 20 and a $188 copayment per day for days 21-100 for SNF care.  
 
You have been asked to pay $1,750 for a SNF stay. This amount is less than the standard copayment for a SNF 
stay because your maximum out-of-pocket was met. The Plan reprocessed previous claims to reduce your 
member liability, so you had no longer met your maximum out-of-pocket until the processing of this claim. 
This item/service falls within the SNF care benefit category. This means that you have been asked to pay the 
correct amount based on your contract with the Plan. This cost sharing is a contractual obligation you agreed to 
pay when you enrolled in the Plan. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment 
for a SNF stay provided from December 1, 2022, to December 22, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a home visit for the evaluation and management provided on 
March 20, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for a home visit for the evaluation and management. You say that the services were 
medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that unauthorized, out-of-network care is not 
covered. 
 
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 pay for care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving emergencies, 
out of area urgent care and pre-approved care.  
The provider of the item(s)/service(s) at issue in this appeal is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan 
did not pre-approve the item(s)/service(s) at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay 
for the item(s)/service(s). Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a home visit for the 
evaluation and management provided on March 20, 2023.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a pneumatic compression device (E0675) provided January 
18, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for a pneumatic compression device. You say that kindly find the attached 
documents for review which proves the medical necessity for the billed services and process your claim for 
payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says E0675 is not a covered benefit. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules state that a PCD that provides intermittent limb compression for the 
purpose of prevention of venous thromboembolism (E0676) is a preventive service. The rules also say that a 
PCD coded as E0675 to treat peripheral arterial disease is not eligible for reimbursement. 
 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, this item is not a covered benefit of Medicare or the Plan. 
PCDs are not covered for preventions of venous thromboembolism nor for treatment of peripheral artery 
disease, regardless of how they are billed on the claim. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pay for a pneumatic compression device (E0675) provided January 18, 2023.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code(s) A4450, A6252, and A6446 billed for date 
of service December 29, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code(s) A4450, A6252, and A6446. You say that you disagree with 
the denial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says these codes are included in the skilled nursing facility 
payment and are not separately payable. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Technical components must be billed by the SNF for its Part A inpatients and are not separately payable. 
 
The records indicate that these services were provided to the enrollee while a SNF inpatient. Per the Physician 
Fee Schedule, CPT codes A4450, A6252, and A6446 have a Professional/Technical indicator of 1. This means 
that CPT codes A4450, A6252, and A6446 have both a professional and technical component. In this case, 
CPT codes A4450, A6252, and A6446 have not been billed with an appropriate modifier to indicate the 
professional component. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of procedure 
code A4450, A6252, and A6446 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay 
for procedure code(s) A4450, A6252, and A6446 billed for date of service December 29, 2022.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a total electric hospital bed (E0265). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a total electric hospital bed. You say that the requested hospital bed is 
needed for mobility and easier access to care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested bed is 
not covered; the height adjustment feature is a convenience feature. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that a total electric hospital bed is not covered.  
 
While a total electric hospital bed may be appropriate in this case, neither the Plan nor Medicare offers 
coverage for this item. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a total electric hospital 
bed (E0265).
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the home ventilator (E0466). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the home ventilator. You say that the ventilator is medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the ventilator is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that ventilators may be covered when they are medically 
necessary for patients who have neuromuscular disease, thoracic restrictive diseases, and chronic respiratory 
failure due to COPD. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the home ventilator. Our physician 
reviewer found the home ventilator is not medically necessary as the bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) is sufficient to meet his needs. Obesity hypoventilation syndrome and heart failure are not indications of the 
home ventilator over the BIPAP. The medical record does not support use of a home ventilator versus BIPAP. 
BIPAP is sufficient to meet the enrollee's needs 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the home ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve the home ventilator (E0466).
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the laboratory services rendered on February 19, 2023. 
 
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 claim for this molecular pathology testing did not include the required unique 
identifier. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that for molecular diagnostic tests, such as the test at issue, 
the MolDX program requires these tests to be reviewed to determine whether Medicare reasonable and necessary requirements are met. When such review is complete, the test is assigned a unique identifier and the 
coverage status is listed in the DEXTM Diagnostics Exchange. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Review of the claim does not show that the required unique identifier 
was reported. 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 laboratory services rendered on 
February 19, 2023.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the home ventilator (E0466). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the home ventilator. You say that the ventilator is medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the ventilator is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that ventilators may be covered when they are medically 
necessary for patients who have neuromuscular disease, thoracic restrictive diseases, and chronic respiratory 
failure due to COPD. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the home ventilator. Our physician 
reviewer found the record does not support the E0466 is necessary vs bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP). BIPAP is effective treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The rationale provided stating 
BIPAP is not indicated because of recurrent hospitalizations is insufficient. BIPAP is effective at reducing 
hospitalizations. There is no evidence the enrollee could not tolerate or that BIPAP is insufficient for the 
enrollee's needs. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the home ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve the home ventilator (E0466).
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the office visit provided on April 5, 2023, by an OON 
provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the office visit. You say that the provider is in-network with the Plan. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the provider is not in-network, and the services were not authorized. 
 
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 pay for care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving emergencies, 
out of area urgent care and pre-approved care. The Plan contract says the enrollees POS benefit only applies to covered routine dental services. 
 
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 on April 5, 2023, by an 
OON provider.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for lab services provided on September 16, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the lab services. You say that this service was medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says you billed with an incorrect place of service on the claim. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that, for lab services, the POS code must reflect the 
location in which the sample was taken. POS code 81 is used to describe samples taken by the laboratory 
directly.  
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of the lab services have not been met. Specifically, this claim was billed with the laboratory POS 
code. The records do not support that the sample was taken in a laboratory setting. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pay for lab services provided on September 16, 2021.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the records provided support medical necessity. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says that 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 found to be medically reasonable and necessary for this enrollee. Our physician reviewer 
found the complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does require an acute hospital 
inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The enrollee does require treatment by 
multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation 
therapy program. There is 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 been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-approve 
acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.  
 
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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an office visit provided on October 11, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for an office visit. You say that this is supported in the records. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says that unauthorized, out-of-network care is not covered. 
 
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 pay for care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving emergencies, 
out of area urgent care and pre-approved care. 
 
The provider of the item(s)/service(s) at issue in this appeal is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan did not pre-approve the item(s)/service(s) at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay 
for the item(s)/service(s). Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an office visit provided 
on October 11, 2022.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the home ventilator (E0466). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the home ventilator. You say that the ventilator is medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the ventilator is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that ventilators may be covered when they are medically 
necessary for patients who have neuromuscular disease, thoracic restrictive diseases, and chronic respiratory 
failure due to COPD. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the home ventilator. Our physician 
reviewer found the ventilator may not be used to only provided bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP), BiPAP is sufficient for the enrollee's needs and there is no medical evidence supporting the E0046 over the 
standard BiPAP. 
 
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 home ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve the home ventilator (E0466).
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee is ready to be admitted to an IRF. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the IRF admission requirements are not all met.  
 
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 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 acute IRF admission and services.