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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the acute inpatient hospital care provided from August 7, 
2023, through August 8, 2023. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for acute inpatient hospital care. You say that this was medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says there is no documentation provided to support the expectation the 
enrollee required a greater than 2 midnight stay. 
 
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 acute inpatient hospital care. Our reviewer 
says that the documentation does not support that the criteria for inpatient payment are met in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the record did not show that at the time of inpatient admission it was reasonable for 
the admitting physician to expect that the patient's necessary hospital care (including earlier emergency 
department and/or observation care) would span two midnights with supporting documentation of the patients 
history and comorbidities, signs and symptoms, current medical needs, and risk of an adverse event. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of acute inpatient hospital care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pay for the acute inpatient hospital care provided from August 7, 2023, through August 8, 
2023.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that an IRF admission is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the services the enrollee needs can be provided safely in other settings, for 
example, a skilled nursing facility (SNF), at home with home health services, or home with outpatient therapy.  
 
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 pay for the inpatient behavioral health admission and detoxification 
services provided from May 4, 2023, to May 9, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the inpatient detoxification services. You say that the enrollee met with a 
physician daily. You say that the enrollee was discharged when they met the identified treatment goals. You 
also say that this should be covered. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the inpatient level of care was 
not medically necessary.  
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that inpatient psychiatric services may be covered if the 
patient requires active treatment.  
 
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 the inpatient detoxification services. Our 
reviewer says that the inpatient behavioral health and detoxification services were not medically necessary. Our 
physician reviewer found the provided documentation does not indicate that the enrollee meets the criteria for 
treatment in an acute inpatient/detoxification treatment beginning May 4, 2023 and could have been treated in a 
lesser restrictive setting. The provided documentation does not indicate that the enrollee was showing signs of 
suicidal or homicidal ideation, auditory or visual hallucinations, delusions and was not showing any behaviors 
or aggression being cooperative and compliant while not showing any acute threats to safety. Therefore, the 
reviewer found that the inpatient treatment was 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 inpatient detoxification services have not been met. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan does not have to pay for the inpatient behavioral health admission and detoxification services 
provided from May 4, 2023, to May 9, 2023.
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Cimerli. You asked the Plan to pre-approve Cimerli. 

You say that the enrollee has persistent fluid in the retina despite four treatments of Avastin. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says There is no record that shows the enrollee has tried both preferred drugs [bevacizumab (Avastin) and Byooviz] and they haven't worked, or that the enrollee has medical reasons that 
prevent them from using them.  
 
Medicare covers Part B medications when they are reasonable and necessary but allows health plans to 
implement step therapy criteria. The Plan's contract indicates that it has implemented such criteria for certain 
Part B medications. 
 
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 Cimerli. Our reviewer says that the 
requested drug is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the record indicates that the 
enrollee has exudative age-related macular degeneration with active choroidal neovascularization. The 
requested medication is a new start. The provided records do not indicate that the enrollee has tried and failed 
the Plan's preferred step one alternative. The record does not indicate that the enrollee has a contraindication to 
or would have an adverse effect from the Plan's preferred step one alternative. The elements of the coverage 
criteria are not satisfied.   
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Cimerli have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pre-approve Cimerli.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for the acute inpatient hospital care provided from February 10, 2023, to 
February 13, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the acute inpatient hospital care. You say that the acute inpatient care was 
medically necessary for the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that care could have been 
provided at a lower level of care. 
 
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 the acute inpatient hospital care. Our 
reviewer says that the documentation supports that the criteria for inpatient payment are met in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the acute hospital care was absolutely indicated, and it could have been expected that 
the enrollee would be hospitalized for two midnights at the time of admission given their anemia, bright red 
blood per rectum, and history of anticoagulation use. 
 
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 acute inpatient hospital care have been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan has to pay for the acute inpatient hospital care provided from February 10, 2023, to February 13, 2023.  
 
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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve a continuous glucose monitor (CGM). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve CGM. You say that you are appealing with supporting records. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says that the enrollee does not meet criteria for this device. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that therapeutic CGMs may be considered reasonable and 
necessary for enrollees with diabetes who meet the criteria referenced 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 CGM. Our reviewer says that the 
enrollee meets criteria for a CGM. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee is using insulin and hence meets 
criteria for CGM use. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of CGM have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-approve a 
continuous glucose monitor (CGM).  
 
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: Testing
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for testing services provided on April 28, 2023, billed with 
procedure code 95955-26. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the testing services provided. You say that the claim is billed correctly and 
should be paid. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says documentation does not support the billed code. 
 
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 95955 is electroencephalogram (EEG) during 
nonintracranial surgery (eg, carotid surgery) 
 
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 the testing services provided. Our reviewer says that documentation does not support the billed code. Our reviewer found that in this case, there is a more 
appropriate code to report for service documented. 
 
We looked at this coder's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the testing services provided have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pay for testing services provided on April 28, 2023, billed with procedure code 95955-26.
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 inpatient rehabilitation is needed to regain maximum 
function. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says admission into inpatient rehabilitation facility 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 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, 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 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 the LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the medical records provided support the 
need for the requested LTACH admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says based on Medicare 
guidelines, the LTACH services requested do not meet the requirements for approval.  
 
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 improving with current treatment and should only require 
short-term additional acute care services that can safely be provided at the current facility until more stable and 
appropriate for transfer.  The enrollee does not require services at the LTACH that are not already available at the current facility. 
Transfer to the LTACH is not medically necessary at this time as it would not be clinically advantageous.  
 
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 the LTACH services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve proton beam therapy. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve proton beam therapy. You say that you are appealing with supporting 
records. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the safety and efficacy of this form of therapy are 
unknown for breast cancer. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that if there are no specific coverage rules for an item 
or service, then that item or service will be covered when it is medically 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 proton beam therapy. Our reviewer says 
that the requested items/services are considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found proton therapy is not investigational, but rather whether or not it is superior to non-proton based 
intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for routine use is an investigational question. This enrollee is 
being offered proton therapy for an exceptional situation (pectus excavatum) in the setting of requiring chest 
wall and comprehensive nodal radiation. Proton therapy is an accepted standard for exceptional circumstances 
which applies in this case. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of proton beam therapy have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to 
pre-approve proton beam therapy.  
 
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: ER
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 99285 billed for date of service January 15, 
2023.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 99285. You say that you disagree with the Plan's denial. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the number of units billed exceeds the maximum allowed.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that submitted claims in which the unit of service 
exceeds the MUE value cannot be paid when the MAI value is 3, unless there is evidence justifying the excess 
units.  
 
In this case, the MUE for CPT code 99285 is 1. The MAI value for this code is 3. You billed 2 units of this 
code, exceeding the MUE. You did not provide all the required evidence showing that the excess units were 
actually provided, were correctly coded, and were medically necessary. Based on this information, we decided 
that Medicare rules for coverage of procedure code 99285 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 99285 billed for date of service January 15, 2023.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you have a subdural hematoma due to a fall at a 
skilled nursing facility that did not have a wall brace. You say the denial should be overturned so you can get 
the rehabilitation you need. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the IRF care is not medically 
necessary, and your needs can be met at a lower level of care such as a skilled nursing 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 you were admitted for a subdural hematoma after a fall. Your medical problems are 
stable, and 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 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: 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 medical records provided support the need for 
the requested IRF admission. 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 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 
was admitted for surgical repair of a femur fracture after a fall. 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 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.