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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the flex-walk system or equal (L5981). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the flex-walk system or equal. You say that the item is medically necessary. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the item is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that Coverage is extended only if there is sufficient 
clinical documentation of functional need for the technologic or design feature of a given type of foot. This 
information must be retained in the treating practitioner's or prosthetist's files.  
 
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 flex-walk system or equal. Our 
reviewer says that the item is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the physician documentation does not support that the patient is a K3 ambulator or why the patient is unable to use a lower 
level multiaxial ankle.  
 
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 flex-walk system or equal have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve the flex-walk system or equal (L5981).
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an in-home ventilator (E0466). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the ventilator. You say that you need this ventilator in order to breathe 
correctly as a result of your medical conditions. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request for a 
home mechanical ventilator set in average volume-assured pressure support (AVAPS) mode with Auto-EPAP 
(AE) that could be delivered by BiPAP is not covered.  
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that ventilators may be covered when they are medically 
necessary for patients who have neuromuscular disease, thoracic restrictive diseases, and chronic respiratory 
failure due to COPD. Claims for ventilators used to provide CPAP or bi-level CPAP therapy will be denied as 
not reasonable and necessary. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the ventilator. Our reviewer says that 
the requested ventilator is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the provided documentation 
does not indicate that you have a neuromuscular disease, thoracic restrictive disease, or chronic respiratory 
failure consequent to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The reviewer found that there is no arterial blood 
gas (ABG) or data to suggest failure or trial. Therefore, the reviewer found that the requested ventilator 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 ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve an in-home ventilator (E0466).
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee needs IRF care. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the requirements for IRF services.  
 
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 
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. There is not a 
reasonable expectation that this enrollee will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive 
rehabilitation program provided in an IRF. 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 an IRF admission is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the IRF services requested 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. The enrollee 
does not require treatment by multiple therapies or an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While the 
medical record supports a need for skilled therapy, there is no documented need for intensive rehabilitation 
services. 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. The enrollee can receive further services 
at a lower level of care.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that your additional medical issues require a higher level 
of care. You also say that you need to be given physical therapy to regain muscle strength and a skilled nursing 
setting does not offer that level of support. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says admission to an IRF 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 your nursing, medical, and rehabilitation needs does not require an 
acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. Your medical problems 
are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. You do 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 therapy and/or occupational therapy, there is 
no documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. 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. 
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 pre-approve a Sprint peripheral nerve stimulator (PNS). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the Sprint PNS. You say that this is medically necessary for the enrollee. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this device has not been shown to be safe and effective. The Plan 
also says that this cannot be approved. 
 
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 Sprint PNS. Our reviewer says that 
the requested Sprint PNS is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found this device is experimental for chronic pain. Therefore, the reviewer found that the requested 
Sprint PNS 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 Sprint PNS have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a Sprint peripheral nerve stimulator (PNS).
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the urinary tract infection (UTI) panel provided on May 30, 
2023, and billed with codes 87500, 87511, 87556, 87563, 87641, 87653, and 87798. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the UTI panel. You say that this testing was medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says this testing is not covered. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that for tests for infectious agents, a single laboratory 
procedure shall be reported as one unit of service whether it generates one or multiple results. Multiple codes 
should only be used when multiple procedures, multiple methodologies, or multiple test kits are medically 
necessary and used to perform the test.   
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The documentation supports that this panel used the nucleic acid 
probe technique. There is no evidence that multiple procedures, multiple methodologies, or multiple kits were 
used in this case. As such, a single code with one unit of service should be used. Based on this information, we 
decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the testing panel have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pay for the urinary tract infection (UTI) panel provided on May 30, 2023, and billed with 
codes 87500, 87511, 87556, 87563, 87641, 87653, and 87798.
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 was recommended for admission to 
acute inpatient rehabilitation by physical medicine rehabilitation in order to improve her strength, mobility, 
activities of daily living skills and balance, therefore increasing her independence at home and in the 
community. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says based on the available information, admission to IRF 
is not reasonable and necessary, as the enrollee's condition does not meet the Medicare rules  
 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 the intensity of services provided at an 
IRF.  Specifically, the enrollee is not shown to require fifteen hours per week of rehabilitative services and 
regular physician evaluation.  The enrollees care needs can be met at a lower level of care (skilled nursing 
facility/sub acute rehabilitation).  
 
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 are requesting an expedited reconsideration for 
the denial of an IRF admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says criteria for admission to the acute 
inpatient rehabilitation setting have not been 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 the complexity of the enrollee's 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.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the heavy-duty wheelchair (K0006). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the heavy-duty wheelchair. You say that the item is medically necessary. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the item is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that a heavy-duty wheelchair (K0006) is covered if 
the beneficiary weighs more than 250 pounds or the beneficiary has severe spasticity. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of the heavy-duty wheelchair have not been met. Specifically, the enrollee does not meet the weight 
requirement for this item and there is no indication the enrollee has sever spasticity. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pre-approve the heavy-duty wheelchair (K0006).
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 expecting this appeal to be approved 
as they have mobility impairments, decreased endurance and strength, and nursing needs. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet Medicare guidelines for services in 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 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.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a power wheelchair (K0013, K0014). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a power wheelchair. You say that the enrollee is not able to access other 
rooms in their house. You say that the enrollee is not able to complete any activities of daily living. You also 
say that the enrollee cannot attend medical appointments. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there is 
no documentation from an assistive technology professional, home evaluation, or that you can safely operate 
the device. The Plan also says that the records do not show that a PWC will significantly improve your ability 
to participate in MRADLs. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that prior to or at the time of delivery of a power operated 
vehicle (POV) or power wheelchair (PWC), the supplier or practitioner must perform an on-site evaluation of 
the beneficiarys home to verify that the beneficiary can adequately maneuver the device that is provided 
considering physical layout, doorway width, doorway thresholds, and surfaces. There must be a written report 
of this evaluation available on request. 
 
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 power wheelchair. Our reviewer says that the requested power wheelchair is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the provided 
documentation does not show that an independent assessment of the enrollee's need for a wheelchair and home 
have been done. Therefore, the reviewer found that the requested power wheelchair 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 a power wheelchair have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a power wheelchair (K0013, K0014).
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 an IRF admission is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says an IRF admission is not medically necessary, and skilled therapies at a 
skilled nursing facility may be approved upon request.  
 
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. The enrollee's 
medical problems are stable and 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 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 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 are having difficulty walking since the resizing 
of your prosthetic. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you do 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 you do 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.