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 need to leave the facility The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the IRF care is not medically necessary, and your needs can be met at a lower level of 
care such as a skilled nursing facility, home with home health services, or home with outpatient therapy. 
 
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 were admitted for cervical spine surgery and was discharged to skilled nursing. 
Your medical problems are stable, and 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. 
 
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 an IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you require additional services to increase your 
strength and improve your mobility. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested IRF admission 
does not meet the Medicare guidelines. 
 
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 you do not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical 
therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program.  While you may have 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 an IRF admission and services.
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 you would like reconsideration based on the records 
submitted. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's condition does not meet Medicare 
guidelines 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 that the enrollee was admitted for chest pain and congestive heart failure. 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 
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 pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
enrollee may remain in the current acute care location until such time no further acute level care is needed, 
medically necessary care may be provided safely in a different level of 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 there is no evidence that the enrollee requires services that are not currently available. 
 
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: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the laboratory services related to end-stage renal disease 
(ESRD) provided on August 23, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the ESRD-related laboratory services. You say that there is no contractual 
agreement in place which indicates that these codes are included in the dialysis rate. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says Medicare does not separately pay for ESRD-related laboratory testing. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules state that routine ESRD laboratory services are not 
separately payable. Laboratories should bill the facility directly for laboratory services as they are considered 
part of the composite rate. No other payment for these services is allowed. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pay for the laboratory services related to end-stage renal disease (ESRD) provided on August 
23, 2022.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the laboratory services related to end-stage renal disease 
(ESRD) provided on August 22, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the ESRD-related laboratory services. You say that your organization does not 
have a contract with the dialysis facility for payment of these lab services. The Plan denied your request. The 
Plan says Medicare does not separately pay for ESRD-related laboratory testing. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules state that routine ESRD laboratory services are not 
separately payable. Laboratories should bill the facility directly for laboratory services as they are considered 
part of the composite rate. No other payment for these services is allowed. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pay for the laboratory services related to end-stage renal disease (ESRD) provided on August 
22, 2022.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for lab services provided on September 6, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the lab services. You say that the claim should be paid. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says you billed with an incorrect place of service on the claim. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that, for lab services, the POS code must reflect the 
location in which the sample was taken. POS code 81 is used to describe samples taken by the laboratory 
directly. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of the lab services have not been met. Specifically, this claim was billed with the laboratory POS 
code. The records do not support that the sample was taken in a laboratory setting. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pay for lab services provided on September 6, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve facet joint interventions. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve the requested services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
requested service is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that facet joint interventions are only covered under 
certain medical indications. 
 
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 requested services. Our physician 
reviewer found that the enrollee has chronic low back pain. The enrollee has had 2 prior medial branch blocks 
which produced 50% and 10% pain relief. Trigger point injections produced 80% pain relief. The request is for 
another facet joint injection. The requirement for additional diagnostic blocks and RFA is 80% pain relief.  
This has not been achieved and therefore, the request is deemed not medically reasonable and necessary. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the requested services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve facet joint interventions.
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 strengthening with your left leg since you 
have not been doing your normal routine since being admitted for other amputation, your end goal is to be self-
sufficient again. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says your documentation does not support need for 
IRF intensity therapies as goal at this time likely to be independence w/sliding board transfers your needs can 
be met safely at a skilled nursing facility level of care. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee continues to have a need for skilled therapy with ongoing safety 
concerns and a potential for functional improvement however, the documentation doesnt support meeting the 
criteria for admission to an acute inpatient rehabilitation facility. 
 
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 Volara System (E1399). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a Volara system. You say that the item is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says this item is not covered in a home setting. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that items and services that are not medically 
necessary are not covered.  
 
We looked at the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of a Volara system have not been met. Specifically, this device is not covered when used in a home 
setting. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Volara System (E1399).
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a therapeutic continuous glucose monitor (CGM). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve CGM. You say that you are appealing this denial. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet criteria for a CGM. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that therapeutic CGMs are considered medically 
reasonable and necessary for enrollees with diabetes who use insulin with at least three daily administrations, 
require frequent self-adjustment of insulin dosage based on the blood glucose testing results and have had an 
in-person visit with their treating physician to assess adherence to their CGM regimen and diabetes treatment 
plan. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The documentation indicates that the enrollee does not use insulin 
with at least three daily injections. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of 
CGM have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a therapeutic 
continuous glucose monitor (CGM).
Appeal type: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the ambulance service, basic life support, non-emergency 
transport and ground mileage provided on August 5, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the ambulance service, basic life support, non-emergency transport and ground 
mileage. You say that the medical records provided support the need for the requested ambulance transport. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the ambulance transport was not medically necessary. 
 
Medicare pays for ambulance services only when they are medically reasonable and necessary. The Plan 
follows the same rules.  
 
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 ambulance service, basic life support, 
non-emergency transport and ground mileage. Our reviewer says that the ambulance transport was not 
medically necessary.  Our physician reviewer found the transportation via ambulance from the hospital to the nursing home was not 
medically necessary. The enrollee did not require the expertise of trained personnel or the equipment available 
only on an ambulance in order to effectuate a safe transport. Transportation could have been provided by other 
means (stretcher van, wheelchair van, private car, taxi) without endangering the enrollee'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 the ambulance service, basic life support, non-emergency transport and ground 
mileage have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the ambulance service, 
basic life support, non-emergency transport and ground mileage provided on August 5, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to reduce the copayment for specialist office visit provided on 
November 01, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to reduce the copayment for specialist office visit. You say that you paid a $40 copayment 
but you do not think this is correct. 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 $25 
copayment for Physician/Practitioner services, including doctors office visits. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $25 copayment for specialist office visit. This item/service falls within the 
Physician/Practitioner services, including doctors office visits benefit category. This means that you have been 
asked to pay the correct amount based on your contract with the Plan. This cost sharing is a contractual 
obligation you agreed to pay when you enrolled in the Plan. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to reduce the copayment for specialist office visit provided on November 01, 2022.
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. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you do not need 
specialized training staff and an intensive team approach, medically necessary care may be provided safely in a 
different level of care. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the records do not show you require fifteen hours per week of rehabilitative services 
and regular physician evaluation. Your care needs can be met safely 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for validity testing billed with code 83789 for date(s) of service 
July 11, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for code 83789. You say that this service is medically necessary and should be paid. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says code 83789 is not separately payable. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers performing validity testing on urine 
specimens utilized for drug testing should not separately bill the validity testing. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of code 83789 have not been met. Specifically, we find that the testing described by code 83789 is not 
separately payable. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for validity testing billed with 
code 83789 for date(s) of service July 11, 2022.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a computerized tomography (CT) scan. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a computerized tomography (CT) scan. You say that you would like to 
request reconsideration of the denied authorization. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services 
requested are not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that CT scans are covered only when they are 
medically 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 computerized tomography (CT) scan. 
Our reviewer says that the service is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the provided 
records do not indicate the medical necessity or reasonableness, as defined by Medicare rules, of the requested 
service. 
 
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 computerized tomography (CT) scan have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a computerized tomography (CT) scan.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for the drainage procedure provided on August 
31, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for the drainage procedure. You say that you feel that this visit was 
coded incorrectly. 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 $275 
copayment for outpatient surgery, including services provided at hospital outpatient facilities and ambulatory 
surgical centers. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $275 copayment for the drainage procedure. This item/service falls within the 
outpatient surgery, including services provided at hospital outpatient facilities and ambulatory surgical centers 
benefit category. This means that you have been asked to pay the correct amount based on your contract with 
the Plan. This cost sharing is a contractual obligation you agreed to pay when you enrolled in the Plan. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for the drainage procedure provided 
on August 31, 2022.