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 you are requesting reconsideration of denied 
authorization. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the coverage criteria has 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. The enrollee 
requires treatment by multiple therapies, including physical therapy and occupational therapy, but this can be 
provided in a lower level of care. There is 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, but the services 
required can be provided 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Life 2000 ventilator. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a Life 2000 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 Life 2000 ventilator. Our reviewer 
says that the services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the Life2000 system is not 
medically necessary. The Life2000 system is not a true ventilator because it is not capable of providing full 
ventilatory support. It is intended to be used during activity, and there is inadequate evidence that it is 
beneficial in the treatment of any chronic lung disease.  
 
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 Life 2000 ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve a Life 2000 ventilator.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the urinary tract infection (UTI) report provided on February 
9, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the UTI report. You say that this testing was medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says this service is not covered. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that this testing requires registration with MolDX and 
a TA to demonstrate compliance of the service with the Medicare policy. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. This test is listed in the DEX database as not covered. Based on this 
information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the UTI report have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the urinary tract infection (UTI) report provided on February 9, 
2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for subsequent nursing facility care provided on May 20, 2023, 
to May 21, 2023, by an out-of-network (OON) provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the subsequent nursing facility care provided OON. You say that every time the 
enrollee falls, the facility is required to report it. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the OON services 
were not pre-authorized. 
 
Medicare rules say that plans can require enrollees to get care from network providers. The contract with the 
Plan says that the Plan has to pay for care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving emergencies, 
out of area urgent care and pre-approved care. 
 
The requested provider in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. The case file shows that the 
enrollee is receiving custodial care in an OON skilled nursing facility (SNF). The case file does not support that the enrollee was referred to the OON hospitalist by a network provider. The Plan did not pre-approve the 
services at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay for these services. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for subsequent nursing facility care provided on May 20, 2023, to 
May 21, 2023, 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 you need IRF services as you are not able to put 
weight on your left leg and there is no one at home to care for you. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 
you do not meet the requirements for an IRF admission.  
 
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 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. 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 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the MyoPro orthotic device (L8702). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the device. You say that the MyoPro is supported as an appropriate 
intervention and is reasonably and medically necessary as recognized by medical communities and key opinion 
leaders in rehabilitation. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the current procedural terminology (CPT) 
code L8702 is considered experimental/investigational and unproven. 
 
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 device. Our reviewer says that the 
requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found the MyoPro Orthosis is not known to be effective, based on scientific evidence, professional 
standards and expert opinion, in improving health outcomes. The MyoPro is not the standard of care for this enrollee's condition or in widespread use for this patient's condition based on scientific evidence. There is 
insufficient evidence in the literature that the MyoPro Orthosis will improve the long-term outcomes for this 
enrollee/ There is insufficient evidence in the literature that this device will increase participation in bimanual 
activities. 
 
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 device have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve the MyoPro orthotic device (L8702).
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Oxervate. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Oxervate. You say that the medication is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the medication is not covered as a medical benefit under the Plan. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare Part B generally does not pay for self-
administered drugs. The self-administered drugs requested here are not among the types which are covered by 
Medicare Part B. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Oxervate.  Benefits for Oxervate may be available under Medicare Part D. Contact the Plan that administers Part D 
benefits for further information concerning any benefits and appeal rights.
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 say that you disagree with the denial for the 
admission to an IRF. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services you need can be provided safely 
in other settings.  
 
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 can be provided in a lower 
level of care and does not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to 
rehabilitation care. You require treatment by multiple therapies. There is documentation that there is a 
reasonable expectation that you will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation 
therapy program provided in an IRF, but the services required can be provided 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a group 3 standard power wheelchair with multiple 
power option, sling/solid seat/back, patient weight capacity up to and including 300 pounds (K0861) and 
additional items and accessories (codes E0950, E0952, E0955, E1007, E1012, E1028, E2300, E2311, E2313, 
E2361, E2377, E2607, E2620, and K0040). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the durable medical equipment (DME). You say that the enrollee is in need 
of a Group 3 power wheelchair to help with activities of daily living, paraplegic, and post polio syndrome. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not have medical need for multiple power options 
available with a K0861 group 3 power wheelchair. The Plan also says the expandable controller, harness and 
electronics are not medically needed. 
 
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 durable medical equipment (DME). 
Our reviewer says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in 
this case. 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 the durable medical equipment (DME) have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a group 3 standard power wheelchair with multiple power 
option, sling/solid seat/back, patient weight capacity up to and including 300 pounds (K0861) and additional 
items and accessories (codes E0950, E0952, E0955, E1007, E1012, E1028, E2300, E2311, E2313, E2361, 
E2377, E2607, E2620, and K0040).
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 LTACH care is needed for the management 
of the enrollee's ongoing clinical needs and care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 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 there are no services available at an 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: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an implant supported partial denture (D6113) under 
claim number 23803749310. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the partial denture under claim number 23803749310. You say that you do 
not understand why you are receiving a denial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the partial denture 
was approved under claim number 23226247146 on August 15, 2023. 
 
Medicare generally does not cover dental services. However, the Plan offers a dental benefit that exceeds 
Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plans coverage rules apply in this case. 
 
 
 
 The record shows the requested partial denture is a duplicate request. The Plan approved $200 for the partial 
denture on August 15, 2023 under claim number 23226247146. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a duplicate request for an implant supported partial denture (D6113) under claim number 
23803749310.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve SNF care. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that SNF care is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says that SNF care is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for care in a SNF when the four factors 
listed in the Medicare rules section are met. Custodial care is 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 SNF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested SNF care is considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the patient does qualify for SNF coverage. The patient does not have documented 
skilled nursing needs. The patient does have documented skilled therapy needs. The patient is walking only 
short distances and is highly symptomatic while doing so. Daily skilled services are required for ongoing 
hemodynamic monitoring, to establish a maintenance program or to prevent deterioration of the patient's 
condition. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of SNF care have been met. The Plan must continue coverage for the SNF skilled 
service until such time as the enrollee no longer needs the service and proper notice has been issued, or the 
100-day Medicare benefit is exhausted. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-approve SNF care.  
 
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: 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 say that you disagree with the denial for the 
admission to an IRF. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says The services the enrollee needs can be 
provided safely in other settings.  
 
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. 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 these services are medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says these services are not medically necessary for the enrollee.  
 
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 can be provided 
in a lower level of care and does not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach 
to rehabilitation care. The enrollee requires treatment by multiple therapies. There is documentation that there 
is a reasonable expectation that the enrollee will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive 
rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF, but the services required can be provided 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.