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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve LTACH services. You say that the enrollee needs LTACH care as the 
enrollee has many complex care needs. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the enrollee does not 
meet the requirements for an LTACH admission. 
 
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 LTACH services. Our reviewer says 
that the requested LTACH care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found that the enrollee does not require services at the LTACH that are not available at the 
acute care hospital. There are no services available at the LTACH that the enrollee requires that are not 
available at the health care setting being offered by the Plan. Given there are offered alternatives, LTACH admission is not medically 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 LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve LTACH services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the continued stay at the psychiatric inpatient hospitalization 
level of care provided from July 6, 2023, to August 7, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the continued stay. You say that this request is not approved. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the provided services were 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 continued stay. Our reviewer says that 
the enrollee does not meet the Medicare criteria for continued inpatient psychiatric care. Our physician 
reviewer found based upon review the records provided it was not expected this enrollee would improve in a 
reasonable period of time beyond the dates in question as they were not showing any dangerousness to self or 
others, auditory or visual hallucinations and without aggressive behaviors while not showing any acute threats 
of safety. Our reviewer also found that it did not appear medically necessary and reasonable to have psychiatric 
care provided at the acute inpatient level of care rather than 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 the continued stay have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pay for the continued stay at the psychiatric inpatient hospitalization level of care provided from 
July 6, 2023, to August 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 this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says Medicare requires determinations of whether IRF stays are reasonable and necessary to 
be based on an assessment of each enrollee's individual care needs.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found that the complexity of the patient's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The patient was 
admitted for a calcaneal fracture after a fall. Medical problems are stable. There are no complex nursing or 
rehabilitation needs. The patient does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical 
therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While the medical record 
supports a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive 
rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different level of care. There is not a 
reasonable expectation that this patient will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive 
rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a group 3 power wheelchair and accessories (E0955, 
E1007, E1012, E1028, E2311, E2313, E2361, E2377, E2603, E2620, K0040, K0861). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a group 3 power wheelchair and accessories. You say that the services are 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says based on the documentation provided, coverage criteria 
has not been met. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that power mobility devices are covered when specific 
criteria are met. 
 
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 the services are necessary. a group 3 power wheelchair 
and accessories. Our reviewer says that the services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found 
the enrollee does not have high risk for skin breakdown, use a catheter intermittently, have spasticity or require 
an alternative means of managing power drive. 
 
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 group 3 power wheelchair and accessories have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a group 3 power wheelchair and accessories (E0955, E1007, 
E1012, E1028, E2311, E2313, E2361, E2377, E2603, E2620, K0040, K0861).
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a MyoPro orthosis (L8702). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a MyoPro orthosis. You say that the requested item is a medical necessity 
for the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested item is 
experimental/investigational. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that items and services that are not medically 
necessary are not covered.  
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve a MyoPro orthosis. Our reviewer says 
that the requested item is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found that the medical literature examining the efficacy of the device is limited. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of a MyoPro orthosis have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a MyoPro orthosis (L8702).
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that admission is a medical necessity. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says based on the review of the information available, it was determined that you do not 
meet the criteria for coverage of acute inpatient rehabilitation.  
 
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. You were admitted for 
surgical repair of a femur fracture after a fall. 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 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: 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 Medicare guidelines, 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 
was admitted for surgical repair of a hip 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.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an office visit provided on December 05, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for an office visit. You say that you are requesting reconsideration for the denied 
claim. 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 December 05, 2022.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayments for an x-ray and the CT scan provided on 
March 6, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayments for an x-ray and the CT scan. You say that you were told that the 
service would be fully covered. 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 a $20 
copay for each in-network x-ray service. Your contract with the Plan also clearly says that you must pay a $175 
copay for each in-network advanced imaging service. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $20 copayment for an x-ray. You have also been asked to pay $89.80, which is 
less than the standard copayment for the CT scan. These services fall within the outpatient diagnostic tests and 
therapeutic services and supplies benefit category. You have been asked to pay a total of $109.80 ($20 
copayment + $89.80 copayment = $109.80). 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 copayments for an x-ray 
and the CT scan provided on March 6, 2023.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve an epidural steroid injection (62321). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve an epidural steroid injection. You say that the services are necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says that based on the documentation provided, coverage criteria has not 
been met. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that epidural steroid injection (ESI) will be considered 
medically reasonable and necessary when specific criteria are met. 
 
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 an epidural steroid injection. Our 
reviewer says that the services are medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has clearly 
cervical degenerative disc changes with a radiation pattern consistent with C3-C4 disease. She meets all of the 
LCD criteria. The request is 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 an epidural steroid injection have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
has to pre-approve an epidural steroid injection (62321).  
 
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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a partial vulvectomy. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the partial vulvectomy. You say that you are appealing with supporting 
records. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request appears cosmetic without clear notes showing 
all conservative treatments have been exhausted. 
 
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 partial vulvectomy. Our reviewer 
says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found that the record indicates that the enrollee has labial hypertrophy. The record provided 
is insufficient to support the medical necessity of the requested service. The record provided does not establish 
the medical necessity and reasonableness, as defined by Medicare rules, of the requested service. 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 the partial vulvectomy have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve a partial vulvectomy.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a ventilator (E0466). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a ventilator. You say that the services are necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says based on the documentation provided, coverage criteria has not been met. 
 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 a ventilator. Our reviewer says that the 
services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee can be treated with average 
volume-assured pressure support (AVAPS) via bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP). At this time, she does 
not have documented failure of BIPAP.  Hence, there is no indication for a home ventilator per the 
documentation provided. 
 
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 ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a ventilator (E0466).
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to provide coverage for acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF)
admission and services for the enrollee.

You asked the Plan to provide coverage for IRF care. You say that at the time of the appeal, IRF admission was
medically necessary for the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the Medicare coverage
criteria were not met. Maximus overturned the Plans denial. The Plan requested a reopen and stated that
Maximus did not apply the correct criteria. The Plan noted the medical records show the enrollee was admitted
to the hospital for weakness, hypertensive urgency, and history of fall. Imaging and diagnostics were negative
for trauma. The enrollee had metabolic encephalopathy likely related to pain medications. The enrollee's
mental status had improved. The enrollee had temporary urinary retention which resolved. The enrollee
required minimum assistance for transfers and ambulation. At the time of the appeal, the enrollee did not
require the level of care and therapy provided by an IRF.

The Plan is correct in this case. 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. Based
on the medical records provided, the enrollee did not require daily skilled therapy or daily skilled nursing or
physician supervision at an IRF level of care. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to provide
coverage for acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services for the enrollee.
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 weakness and COVID -19 infection. 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.