Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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 has a serious, life threatening 
constellation of acute medical problems that have left them at a functional status below their baseline. 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 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. 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 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 acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the shingles vaccine provided on April 13, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the immunization. You say that you were advised by your doctor that you would 
not have to pay for this. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the shingles vaccine is not covered under 
Medicare Part B. 
 
In the absence of injury or direct exposure to illness, Medicare does not pay for or provide the immunization. 
The Plan follows the same rules.  
 
Records do not show that you have been injured or directly exposed to any illness related to the immunization. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the shingles vaccine provided on April 13, 2023.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a back-up battery (E1399). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a back-up battery. You say that the item should be covered. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says this is an item of convenience and does not primarily serve a medical purpose. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that for equipment to be covered, it must primarily serve a 
medical purpose.   
 
The item at issue in this appeal does not serve a purpose that is primarily medical in nature. This item is 
available to the general public and would be helpful even to those who are not sick or injured. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a back-up battery (E1399).
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the coinsurance for an in-network walking boot provided on 
July 25, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the coinsurance for an in-network walking boot. You say that this boot caused 
more harm and paid than good. You feel you should not have to pay this. 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 20% 
coinsurance for durable medical equipment and related supplies. 
 
You have been asked to pay 20% coinsurance for an in-network walking boot. This item/service falls within 
the durable medical equipment and related supplies 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. The total you owe is $65.99 ($329.96 allowed amount x 20% = 
$65.99) Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to waive the coinsurance for an in-network walking 
boot provided on July 25, 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 the requested IRF services are necessary for the 
enrollee to regain mobility and return to their home. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's 
needs may be met at an alternate level of care.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of 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. 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 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 acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the office visit provided on April 12, 2023, by an out-of-
network (OON) provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the outpatient visit. You say that you advised your primary care physician that 
you needed prior authorization for this visit. You say that no request was ever submitted. You also say that you 
were told this service would be covered. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says prior authorization was 
not obtained. 
 
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 in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. 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 12, 2023, by an out-of-network 
(OON) provider.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the alcohol wipes (A4245) purchased on June 7, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the alcohol wipes. You say that the item should be covered. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says this is not a covered item. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that alcohol or peroxide (codes A4244, A4245) are 
non-covered since these items. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of the alcohol wipes have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for 
the alcohol wipes (A4245) purchased on June 7, 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 the enrollee meets Medicare criteria for admission to 
an IRF. You would like reconsideration based on the records submitted. The Plan denied your request. The 
Plan says the enrollee's medical and therapy needs could be met in a skilled nursing unit.  
 
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. 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 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 acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that you require assistance for your complex 
medical needs. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you are receiving appropriate inpatient acute care 
and are currently unstable for transfer to an LTACH. 
 
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 you appear to be improving with current treatment and should only require short-term 
additional acute care services that can safely be administered at the current facility until more stable and 
appropriate for transfer to a lower level of care. You do not require services at the LTACH that are not already available at the current facility. There are no services at the LTACH that you require that are not already 
available and covered at the current facility. Transfer to the LTACH is not medically necessary as it would not 
be clinically advantageous at this time. Completion of treatment at the current facility is recommended.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve geniculate artery embolization. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve geniculate artery embolization. You say that geniculate artery embolization 
is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says geniculate artery embolization is not 
medically necessary. 
 
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 geniculate artery embolization. Our 
reviewer says that the requested geniculate artery embolization is not considered medically reasonable and 
necessary. Our physician reviewer found that geniculate artery embolization is considered experimental therapy 
and is the subject of ongoing clinical trials. Therefore, the request is deemed not medically reasonable and 
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 geniculate artery embolization have not been met. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pre-approve geniculate artery embolization.
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 requested IRF services are necessary for you to 
regain mobility and strength. You say you are unable to ambulate without pain and cannot perform your 
activities of daily living and require physical therapy and occupational therapy. 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. 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 acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for procedure code G2067 provided on May 4, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code G2067. You say that you would like the Plan to reconsider their 
denial of payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the billing provider is not Medicare-
certified to provide opioid treatment services. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare health plans must make reasonable and 
diligent efforts to gather and forward to the IRE information regarding its decision to deny coverage or 
payment. 
 
The Plan has not made reasonable and diligent efforts to gather and forward to us information regarding their 
decision to deny your request. Specifically, the Plan's sole rationale for denial is that your facility is not 
Medicare-certified to provide opioid treatment services. This simply is not true. Not only have you supplied 
evidence of such certification, but Medicare's own Opioid Treatment Program (OTP) Directory lists your 
facility as being certified to provide OTP services from April 18, 2004, to present. As such, we find that the 
Plan has not substantiated this denial of payment. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for procedure 
code G2067 provided on May 4, 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: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code A9279 billed for date of service June 6, 
2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code A9279. You say that this service was medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the billed code is invalid for Medicare purposes.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate procedure code. 
 
We find that procedure code A9279 has a Status Indicator of I on the Physician Fee Schedule. This means that procedure code A9279 is not valid for Medicare purposes. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare 
rules for coverage of procedure code A9279 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pay for procedure code A9279 billed for date of service June 6, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an office visit to be provided by an out-of-network 
(OON) provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve an office visit. You say that you are requesting reconsideration for the 
denied claim. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this provider is out-of-network, and the services 
could be performed in-network. 
 
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 
an office visit to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
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 requested IRF services are medically necessary. 
You would like reconsideration based on the records submitted. 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 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. 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 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 acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.