Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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 the services are necessary for your health 
conditions. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services you need could be provided in another 
setting such as an acute rehabilitation facility, skilled nursing facility, nursing facility, outpatient setting or 
home care. 
 
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 record indicates that you have ongoing acute medical issues and still require acute 
care services. You continue to receive acute care services, and these have not been denied. The medical record 
does not indicate that you require services that you are not currently receiving but that would be available at the 
LTACH facility. The elements of the coverage rules 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 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a home ventilator. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the ventilator. You say that this device is medically necessary The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the criteria for this device are not 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. 
 
 
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 ventilator. Our reviewer says that 
the requested ventilator is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found Provided records document 
that the home ventilator is being requested for use in average volume assured pressure support (AVAPS) mode 
with auto-titration (AE) which could be provided by a BiPAP device with AVAPS and a back-up rate. LCD 
L33800 states that claims for ventilators used to provide BiPAP therapy 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 the ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a home ventilator.
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 services are necessary to help the enrollee with 
therapy needs. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says ongoing skilled care can be provided in an 
alternative setting. 
 
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 enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies. While the medical 
record supports a need for physical or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive 
rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different level of care. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that without rehab you are at risk of having 
an amputation. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an LTACH admission is not medically necessary, 
and your needs can be met in the current hospital setting. 
 
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 there is no documentation that was provided indicating medical necessity for 
admission to a LTACH. You do not require services at the LTACH that are not available at the acute care 
hospital where you are currently receiving 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 LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve LTACH services.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for home health services rendered on March 12, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. You say that this should be paid for. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says the correct documentation was not sent in for this case. 
 
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 services have been met. Multiple 
required pieces of documentation were not sent in by the provider for this case. The documentation did not 
contain any medical records for the stay. The plan of care and the Outcome and Assessment Information Set 
(OASIS) were also not included.. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for home health 
services rendered on March 12, 2021.
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 services are necessary for you to receive the care 
needed so you are not wheelchair bound. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services you need 
can be provided safely in another setting. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
 
 
 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found you are medically stable and do not require intensive therapy services.  
While the medical record supports a need for physical and occupational therapy, there is no documented need 
for intensive rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different level of care. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for inpatient hospital services rendered from October 26, 2021, 
to October 28, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the inpatient hospital services at the DRG originally billed. You say that 
supporting documentation for reconsideration of the DRG adjustment was sent in. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says a post-service, post-payment clinical validation audit was performed to help ensure that 
the diagnosis codes on the claim supported clinically. 
 
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 DRG 872. 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 the services at issue in this case were not supported by the medical records. Our physician reviewer found 
that the documentation does not indicate that the treatment ordered by the treating medical providers supported 
a diagnosis code of A41.59(Other Gram-negative sepsis) and R65.20 (Severe sepsis without septic shock). In 
this case, the documentation does not consistently and completely support the assigned diagnoses codes with 
DRG. The replacement of DRG is upheld as it is supported by the medical documentation.  
 
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 rendered from October 26, 2021, to October 28, 2021.
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 the enrollee would benefit from services 
at the LTACH to receive the proper level of care needed. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
enrollee is receiving the care needed in the hospital where they are now and there is no need to transfer to the 
LTACH at this time. 
 
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 there is no documentation provided indicating medical necessity for admission to a 
LTACH. The enrollee is receiving appropriate care at the present 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 health plan. 
 
 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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve geniculate artery embolization. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the services. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says experimental and investigational procedures are not covered by Medicare. 
 
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 services. Our reviewer says that the 
requested services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer 
found that evidence on its efficacy and long-term safety of this request is inadequate in quality and quantity. 
Therefore, this procedure should only be used in the context of research. The procedure is experimental. 
 
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 services 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 services are necessary for the enrollee to get the 
care needed and return home. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services the enrollee needs can 
be provided safely in another setting. 
 
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 enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies. While the medical 
record supports a need for physical or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive 
rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different level of care. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that the services are medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says your needs can be met in a lower level of care. 
 
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 you have no identifiable skilled nursing service needs. There are identifiable skilled 
therapy service needs, however you do not require skilled nursing or therapy services on a daily basis. You do 
not meet the 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 not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for hospital care (procedure codes 99223 and 99233) rendered 
from May 31, 2022, to June 2, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. You say that medical records were submitted for review. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the records do not support the services billed. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate CPT code. 
 
In this case, the CPT Code Manual definition of the denied codes is: 
 
CPT 99223: 
 
Initial hospital care, per day, for the evaluation and management of a patient, which requires these 3 key 
components: A comprehensive history; A comprehensive examination; and Medical decision making of high 
complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other physicians, other qualified health care 
professionals, or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or 
family's needs. Usually, the problem(s) requiring admission are of high severity. Typically, 70 minutes are spent at the bedside and on the patient's hospital floor or unit. 
 
CPT 99233: 
 
Subsequent hospital care, per day, for the evaluation and management of a patient, which requires at least 2 of 
these 3 key components: A detailed interval history; A detailed examination; Medical decision making of high 
complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other physicians, other qualified health care 
professionals, or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or 
family's needs. Usually, the patient is unstable or has developed a significant complication or a significant new 
problem. Typically, 35 minutes are spent at the bedside and on the patient's hospital floor or unit 
 
We asked our coder to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to determine if the 
Plan was correct in denying the request to pay for the services. Our reviewer says that the services at issue in 
this case were not supported by the medical records. Our reviewer found that the documentation does not 
support the billing of CPT 99223 on 5/31/2022. The medical decision making was not of high complexity. The 
diagnoses had been made at the outside facility and treatment for the fracture was deferred to the 
neurosurgeon. Additionally, the documentation does not support the billing of CPT 99233 on 6/1/2022 or 
6/2/2022. The interval histories are not detailed. The medical decision making was not of high complexity. 
 
We looked at this coder's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pay for hospital care (procedure codes 99223 and 99233) rendered from May 31, 2022, to June 2, 2022.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for inpatient hospital services rendered from February 26, 2021, 
to March 2, 2021. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for the inpatient hospital services at the DRG originally billed. You say that you 
submitted supporting documentation for reconsideration of the DRG adjustment. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says the DRG was updated. 
 
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 DRG 947. 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  Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee was evaluated in the emergency department (ED) for 
altered mental status/change in mental status. There was concern that the enrollee may have had a hypoxic 
event, a poorly treated/worsening urinary tract infection (UTI) or a seizure. There is no documentation of 
identified respiratory issues or seizures.  The enrollee continued treatment for a possible UTI, which if present 
would warrant a diagnosis of infectious encephalopathy.  In the absence of a clear metabolic issue (i.e., 
dehydration, electrolyte derangements), a secondary diagnosis of metabolic encephalopathy is not 
supported.  If a metabolic encephalopathy was present, then the principal diagnosis of altered mental status, 
unspecified would not be warranted.  
 
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 rendered from February 26, 2021, to March 2, 2021.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a lumbar-sacral orthosis (procedure code L0650) provided on 
October 28, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the medical records do not indicate that the enrollee was treated for back pain. 
 
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 pay for the services. Our reviewer says that the requested services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer 
found that in this case, the documentation doesnt indicate the enrollee has had a new injury or any specific 
problems to the spine or related soft tissue. There is no indication that the member has had any surgical 
procedure. There is no clear indication that the enrollee required a back orthosis. 
 
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 services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pay for a lumbar-sacral orthosis (procedure code L0650) provided on October 28, 2022.