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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that a LTACH is the medically appropriate 
level of care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request 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 the enrollee does not require services at the LTACH that are not available at the 
acute care hospital where they are currently receiving care. All medically necessary care is being provided 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.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a semi-electric hospital bed. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve these services. You say that you disagree with the denial. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the services are not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that a semi-electric hospital bed may be considered 
medically necessary when the patient: 
 
1. Has a medical condition which requires positioning of the body in ways not feasible with an ordinary bed; or 
 
2. Requires attachments which can only be attached to a hospital bed; AND  
3. Requires frequent changes in body position and/or has an immediate need for a change in body position. 
 
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 these services. Our reviewer says that 
the services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the records do not show that you are 
unable to independently reposition yourself in bed and require frequent repositioning for alleviation of pain or 
prevention of contracture or respiratory infections. There is no documentation that you have neurological 
deficits or are dependent for performing pressure relief or transfers. The criteria for coverage are not met and 
the services are not reasonable or 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 these services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a semi-electric hospital bed.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for lab services provided on December 28, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the lab services. You say that the testing was necessary for the management of 
the enrollee's advanced cancer. 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. The claim in this case was billed with the laboratory POS code. The 
records do not support that the sample was taken in a laboratory setting. Based on this information, we decided 
that Medicare rules for coverage of the lab services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pay for lab services provided on December 28, 2021.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that IRF services will help you get better. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the request is 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 your medical problems are stable and there are no complex nursing or 
rehabilitation needs. 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 IRF admission and services.
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 are appealing the denial. 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 based on the medical records provided there is no documentation that daily 
skilled services are required. There is no documentation that you require the services on an inpatient basis, only 
in a skilled nursing facility setting. Records do not support that services in the home or an assisted living 
facility with home health care or in a long-term care facility on a part time basis are not appropriate in this case. 
 
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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a sit-to-stand table system. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve these services. You say that you disagree with the denial. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the services are not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that a sit-to-stand system is covered when specific 
criteria are met. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve these services. Our reviewer says that 
the criteria for coverage are not met. Our physician reviewer found the records show that you have a history of 
multiple sclerosis and spasticity. You are unable to stand and are non-ambulatory. The records do not support 
that you are confined to a bed. The item is being requested so that you can stand without assistance. The 
criteria for coverage are not met and the services are not reasonable or 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 these services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a sit-to-stand table system.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for laboratory testing provided on September 28, 2021, coded as
87651 and 87150.
You asked the Plan to pay this claim. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this claim was not submitted
with a required modifier. Maximus partially overturned the Plans denial for a portion of the codes on the claim.
The Plan requested a reopen and stated those codes other than 87651 and 87150 are now being reviewed at the
Plan level under their reopen process.
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly.
Providers must report services with the appropriate codes and when required the appropriate modifier. Code
87651 and 87150 are Column 2 codes in relation to 87801 and 87500, respectively. 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 the lab testing
described by codes 87651 and 87150.
Appeal type: Outpatient Mental Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for psychiatry services provided on August 26, 2022, by an out-
of-network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for psychiatry services. You say that you are appealing with supporting records. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee must receive care from a network provider. 
 
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 Plan had network providers 
available who could have provided the items/services at issue in this appeal. The Plan did not pre-approve the 
item/service at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay for these items/services. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for psychiatry services provided on August 26, 2022, 
by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for inpatient hospital care provided on June 30, 
2022, to July 14, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for inpatient hospital care. You say that you are disputing the share 
cost. 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 $250 
copayment per day for days 1-7 for inpatient hospital care. This inpatient hospital stay lasted 15 days, resulting 
in a copayment of $1,750 ($250 per day for 7 days = $1,750).  
 
You have been asked to pay $250 copayment per day for days 1-7 for inpatient hospital care. This item/service 
falls within the inpatient hospital care 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 
inpatient hospital care provided on June 30, 2022, to July 14, 2022.
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 would benefit from long term acute 
care services due to your medical complexity. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says when you are ready 
to leave the hospital, you can safely receive this care in another setting, such as skilled nursing facility, or at 
home with home health services, or outpatient 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 the enrollee is receiving appropriate care at the present acute care hospital. 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: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 70450 billed for date of service August 23, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 70450. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says payment for 
code 70450 is bundled into payment for code 70496.  
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 70450 
is a column II code to column I code 70496. 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 70450 billed for date of service August 23, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for laboratory services provided on May 10, 2022, by an out-of-
network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for laboratory services. You say that you are appealing with supporting records. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee must receive care from a network provider. 
 
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 Plan had network providers 
available who could have provided the items/services at issue in this appeal. The Plan did not pre-approve the 
item/service at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay for these items/services. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for laboratory services provided on May 10, 2022, 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 IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that IRF care is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says that 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 that the enrollee does not have complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. 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. 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 IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the requested admission to an IRF is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the requested admission to an IRF is 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 found to be medically reasonable and necessary. Our physician reviewer found 
documentation shows that you have an IRF compliant diagnosis with complex functional deficits and the 
evaluating therapists recommend intense therapy (physical therapy, occupational therapy and speech therapy). 
Clinical documentation also specifies multiple active comorbidities and hospital complications, thus the 
complexity of your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an 
interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation 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 been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-approve 
acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.  
 
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: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care after November 9, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care after November 9, 2022. You say that the continued admission to 
a SNF is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the continued admission to a SNF 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 after November 9, 2022. Our 
reviewer says that the requested SNF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on 
Medicare guidelines. Our physician reviewer found documentation does not show that the enrollee required 
daily skilled nursing or therapy services in a SNF from November 9, 2022, on.  
 
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 after November 9, 2022, have not been met. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan does not have to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care after November 9, 2022.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the pharmacogenetics testing provided on April 3, 2022. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for the testing services. You say that medical records were provided. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the testing is not considered a screening service. 
 
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. The medical records from the enrollees treating physician does not 
show that the testing was ordered for a known gene-drug interaction, or due to side effects from medications. 
The testing is not covered for screening purposes. Based on this information, we decided that the Medicare 
rules for coverage have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the 
pharmacogenetics testing provided on April 3, 2022.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Via Disc Allograft procedure. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the Via Disc procedure. You say that this service is medically necessary. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested procedure is experimental and non-covered. 
 
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 Via Disc procedure. Our reviewer 
says that the requested services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found there is limited published, large-scale, long-term, peer-reviewed literature that shows 
this request to be an effective or safe treatment for the noted pathology. Further studies are needed to 
demonstrate this request has beneficial outcomes compared with conventional treatment. 
 
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 Via Disc procedure have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve a Via Disc Allograft procedure.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for home health services billed for dates of service May 6, 2022, 
to June 2, 2022. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for home health services. You say that the services at issue have been billed 
correctly. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says rules for payment for home health services have not 
been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that for all beneficiaries receiving HH services in 
2021 whose services will continue in 2022, the HHA shall submit an NOA with a one-time, artificial 
'admission' date corresponding to the "From" date of the first period of continuing care in 2022. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of home health services have not been met. Specifically, the Plan has documented that the admission 
date on the claim for the period of care at issue does not match the admission date on the submitted NOA. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for home health services billed for dates of service 
May 6, 2022, to June 2, 2022.