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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that IRF services are medically necessary, and you would 
like reconsideration based on the records submitted. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested 
IRF services are 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 that the complexity of enrollees 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 respiratory failure and pneumonia. The enrollees 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 enrollee may have 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 an IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for inpatient hospital services provided on August 12, 2021, to 
August 20, 2021, at the Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) originally billed. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the inpatient hospital services at the DRG originally billed. You say that the 
claim was 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 inpatient hospital services with the appropriate DRG, which is based, in part, on the 
reported principal and secondary diagnosis codes.   
 
In this case, you billed the inpatient services provided with principal diagnosis code A41.9, described as sepsis, 
unspecified organism, and secondary diagnosis code R65.21, described as severe sepsis with septic shock. 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 hospital services at the DRG 
originally billed. Our reviewer says that documentation does not support the billed code. Our physician 
reviewer found the enrollee's illness was not unspecified nor unknown at the time of admission. The enrollee 
was admitted with, and treated for, cholangitis complicated by abdominal abscesses and Systemic 
inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), as well as for gastrointestinal malignancy leading to biliary/liver 
failure. It does not appear that the infection itself caused any organ failure.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided the 
medical records do not substantiate the DRG as billed. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay 
for inpatient hospital services provided on August 12, 2021, to August 20, 2021, at the Diagnosis Related 
Group (DRG) originally billed.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Group 3 power wheelchair with multiple power 
options and accessories. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a Group 3 power wheelchair with multiple power options. You say that the 
enrollee qualifies for a Group 3 power mobility device. You also say that a simpler device will not meet the 
enrollee's needs. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says a Group 3 power wheelchair with multiple power 
options is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that a Group 3 power wheelchair with multiple power 
options may be covered if certain 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 a Group 3 power wheelchair with 
multiple power options. Our reviewer says that the requested Group 3 power wheelchair with multiple power 
options is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the clinical documentation is insufficient why 
a lower-level power wheelchair would not suffice for her needs versus a Group 3 power wheelchair. The 
enrollee does have Parkinsons Disease with impaired coordination, but this should not impair the ability to 
adequately perform pressure relief, especially when the enrollee is noted to be independent with dressing, can 
still ambulate short distances with a walker, and has 4out of 5 motor strength in the upper extremities. There is 
inadequate clinical documentation regarding why the enrollee requires power tilt and recline and cannot 
perform pressure relief. There is also no significant lower extremity edema or spasticity that would require 
power elevating leg rests. Therefore, the Group 3 power wheelchair with power tilt and recline and power 
elevating leg rests is not medically necessary. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. As the base power wheelchair is not covered, 
the associated accessories are also denied. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of a Group 3 power wheelchair with multiple power options have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Group 3 power wheelchair with multiple power options 
and accessories.
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 the LTACH services. You say that the requested LTACH admission is 
medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says admission to a LTACH is not medically 
necessary. 
 
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 that all medically necessary care is being provided in the current acute care setting.  
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. The Plan has approved ongoing care in the current acute care setting.  The requested LTACH services are not medically necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and 
condition of the enrollee and able to be furnished safely and effectively only on an inpatient basis. 
 
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 LTACH services.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) bone density 
study of hips (77080), provided on September 27, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the bone density test.. You say that the services are medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says due to the absence of the required medical documentation, this service 
cannot be verified. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that the provider, supplier, or beneficiary, as 
appropriate, must furnish to the intermediary or carrier sufficient information to determine whether payment is due and the amount of payment. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that there is insufficient 
information in the record to determine if Medicare rules for coverage of the bone density test have been met. 
The records submitted don't include the report for the bone density test. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pay for a dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) bone density study of hips (77080), 
provided on September 27, 2022.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve surgical extractions (D7230 and D7240), deep sedation 
(D9222 and D9223) and therapeutic parenteral drugs (D9612). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the dental services. You say that your mouth is infected, and you cannot eat 
anything solid at all. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services requested are not covered by the 
enhanced supplemental dental benefit and not eligible for coverage under the medical benefit. 
 
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. 
 
 Though the Plan offers a dental benefit in excess of Medicare coverage, the requested items or services are not 
among those covered under this benefit. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve 
surgical extractions (D7230 and D7240), deep sedation (D9222 and D9223) and therapeutic parenteral drugs 
(D9612).
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve SNF care. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that you live alone and cannot care for yourself. You 
need more time to get back on your feet. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request 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 not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found that you do not have daily skilled nursing needs that require the specialized skill, 
knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional nurse. You do not have daily skilled therapy needs that 
require the specialized skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional therapist. You do not require 
daily skilled nursing and/or skilled therapy on an inpatient basis in a SNF setting. 
 
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 not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve SNF care.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a CardioMEMS HF System (33289, C2624). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a CardioMEMS HF System. You say that the device is medically necessary 
for the enrollee's condition. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the CardioMEMS device has been 
determined to be of uncertain value and carries a risk of significant complications including death and severe 
pulmonary artery injury. The CardioMEMS device at this point should only be approved for enrollees enrolled 
in a clinical trial. There is no indication that this enrollee is enrolled in a clinical trial of the device. 
 
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 CardioMEMS HF System. Our 
reviewer says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this 
case. Our physician reviewer found the CardioMEMS device was approved by the FDA in 2014 and consists of 
a sensor device placed in the pulmonary artery to allow measurement of pulmonary artery pressure in the 
management of enrollees with CHF. The clinical study on which FDA approval was based showed improved 
clinical outcomes and decreased hospitalizations in enrollees in whom the CardioMEMS system was 
implanted, reflecting an enrollee population with preserved ejection fraction and was somewhat limited in 
scope. Subsequent follow-up studies remain encouraging and suggest an improvement in heart failure 
symptoms with the use of the device. In addition, published expert opinion in the cardiology literature is 
supportive of the clinical usefulness of CardioMEMS. Nonetheless, there remains a dearth of randomized, 
blinded clinical studies examining long-term clinical outcomes establishing the value of CardioMEMS in 
enrollee management. As a result, at this time the CardioMEMS system would not be considered medically 
appropriate and necessary in this enrollees clinical management. 
 
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 CardioMEMS HF System have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve a CardioMEMS HF System (33289, C2624).
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a home ventilator (E0466). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a home ventilator. You say that this device is the best fix for the enrollee 
given her medical history. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request for a home mechanical 
ventilator set in AVAPS mode with Auto-EPAP (AE) that could be delivered by BiPAP is not covered. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that ventilators may be covered when they are medically 
necessary for patients who have neuromuscular disease, thoracic restrictive diseases, and chronic respiratory 
failure due to COPD. 
 
 
 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 home ventilator. Our reviewer says 
that the service is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has a diagnosis of 
chronic respiratory failure consequent to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Provided records document 
that the home ventilator is being requested for use in average volume assured pressure support (AVAPS) mode 
with auto-EPAP (AE) which could be provided by a BiPAP device with AVAPS and a back-up rate. Provided 
records do not document trial and failure of a BiPAP device with AVAPS and a back-up rate. As stated in the 
Local Coverage Determination (L33800): "Claims for ventilators used to provide CPAP or bi-level CPAP 
therapy for conditions described in this RAD policy will be denied as not 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 a home ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a home ventilator (E0466).
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. 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 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 you do require skilled nursing or therapy services on a daily basis. You do meet 
severity of illness or intensity of service criteria for an inpatient basis in a skilled nursing facility setting. 
 
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 skilled nursing 
facility (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: ER
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 99284 billed for date of service August 10, 
2022. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 99284. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says payment for 
code 99284 is bundled into payment for code 99285. 
 
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, we have confirmed that code 99284 
is a column II code to column I code 99285. This claim has not been billed with an appropriate modifier to 
bypass the edit. Based on the claim submitted, Medicare billing criteria have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 99284 billed for date of service August 10, 2022.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a vacuum system (L5781) and the below knee alignable 
system (L5910). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the prosthetic components. You say that the enrollee has frequent swelling. 
You say that the vacuum system is necessary to accommodate the variable volume in their residual limb. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested features exceed the enrollee's medical need. 
 
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 prosthetic components. Our 
reviewer says that the requested prosthetic components are not considered medically reasonable and necessary 
in this case. Our physician reviewer found the requested vacuum assist system has failed to show improved 
function when added to a prosthesis. The reviewer also found that the requested alignable system is not an improvement over standard care. Therefore, the reviewer found that the requested prosthetic components are 
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 prosthetic components have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve a vacuum system (L5781) and the below knee alignable system (L5910).
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 the LTACH services. You say that you are requesting an expedited 
reconsideration stating the enrollee clearly exceeds criteria for an appropriate LTACH admission. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the guidelines for care in 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 the enrollee does not require services at the LTACH that are not available at the acute 
care hospital where they are currently receiving care. The Plan has approved ongoing care in the current acute 
care setting. 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 LTACH services.