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 admission is medically necessary for the enrollee. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's records do not show complex rehabilitation needs 
that require frequent evaluation by a rehabilitation physician. The Plan says that the services needed may be 
provided safely in a lower 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 complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the services are medically necessary for your 
complex medical needs. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you do not meet the criteria for admission 
to an IRF.  
 
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. There are no acute rehab nursing needs identified or 
documented. At the current functional level, you are not expected to make a significant functional recovery in 
7-10 days as predicted and do not need intensive therapies consisting of at least 3 hours of therapy per day at 
least 5 days per week with multidisciplinary approach in an IRF. Your rehab needs can be safely provided in an 
alternate and low intensity setting such as in a skilled nursing 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: ER
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 93005 for date of service March 21, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 93005. You say that you disagree with the Plan's denial. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services are not payable as 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. 
 
We find that CPT code 93005 is not payable as billed. Specifically, code 93005 has a status indicator of Q1. 
Procedure code 99285 was billed on the same claim, with the same date of service, with a revenue code of 450. 
This gives code 99285 a status indicator of "V". Therefore, code 93005 is not separately payable as billed. 
Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of procedure code 93005 have not been 
met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 93005 for date of service 
March 21, 2023.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for inpatient hospital services provided on December 19, 2022, 
to December 23, 2022, 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 these 
services and diagnoses were medically necessary and are supported as billed. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says this diagnosis is not adequately supported in the records provided; therefore, the submitted DRG 
is not supported. 
 
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 J96.21 (acute and chronic respiratory failure with 
hypoxia). 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 this diagnosis is not supported in the records provided. Our 
physician reviewer found there is unclear documentation of respiratory 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 December 19, 2022, to December 23, 2022, at the Diagnosis Related 
Group (DRG) originally billed.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health services for date of service January 8, 2022, 
to February 6, 2022. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for the home health services. You say that you disagree with the Plan's denial. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the NOA was not received timely. As such, this final claim was 
correctly denied.  
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that an NOA must be submitted within 5 days of the start of 
care date for home health services. NOAs which are received more than 30 days from the timely filing date 
result in no payment being made for the episode of care.  
 
In this case, the start of care date is January 8, 2022. The NOA was not received by the Plan until June 29, 
2022. As more than 30 days passed between the timely filing date and the NOA receipt, no payment can be 
made on this claim. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health services for 
date of service January 8, 2022, to February 6, 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. You say that admission is medically necessary for you. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says your records do not show that you have complex rehabilitation needs which 
would require you to be seen three times per week by a rehabilitation physician for evaluation of your 
functional goals and progress. The Plan says that the services needed may be provided safely in a lower 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 complexity of your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not 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 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 ventilator. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a ventilator. You say that the device helps prevent pulmonary infections, 
hospitalizations, or antibiotics. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this device is not standard medical 
treatment for the enrollee's condition.  
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that ventilators may be covered when they are medically 
necessary for patients who have neuromuscular disease, thoracic restrictive diseases, and chronic respiratory 
failure due to COPD. Claims for ventilators used to provide CPAP or bi-level CPAP therapy will be denied as 
not reasonable and necessary. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve a ventilator. Our physician reviewer 
found that the enrollee has chronic respiratory failure from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The 
provided documentation does not contain sufficient information to justify the treatment selected. The enrollee 
could be treated with a BiPAP machine, and failure of such a device has not been documented. The elements of 
the coverage criteria are not satisfied. The requested service cannot be recommended. 
 
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 ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a 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 you would like reconsideration based on the records 
submitted. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the criteria for admission to 
an IRF.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of the enrollees nursing, medical, and rehabilitation needs does not 
require an acute rehabilitation hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. 
The enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational 
therapy, at an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. The member continues to have a need for skilled 
therapy with ongoing safety concerns and a potential for functional improvement. However, the documentation 
does not support that they would meet criteria for admission to an IRF  There is no indication that the enrollee 
would require skilled rehabilitation in an IRF, participating in rehabilitation services 15 hours a week, under 
the supervision of a physician with at least 3 visits weekly to regain or maintain their functional status.  The 
enrollee can receive further services 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: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a low dose computed tomography (LDCT) scan for lung 
cancer screening. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the requested LDCT scan. You say that the services are medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the Medicare criteria for 
approval. 
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare covers one annual LDCT scan for lung 
cancer screening for enrollees who meet all the criteria described in the Medicare rules section of this letter.  
 
We reviewed the file and the Medicare rules. We find that the enrollee's age does not meet the required criteria 
for approval. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a low dose computed 
tomography (LDCT) scan for lung cancer screening.
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 medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the criteria for admission to an IRF.  
 
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 is medically improving with pain. There are no acute rehab nursing 
needs identified or documented. At the current functional level, the enrollee needs pain control and routine 
physical and occupational therapy services. The enrollees rehab needs can be safely provided in an alternate 
and low intensity setting such as in a skilled nursing 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: 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 were not treated at the hospital for memory loss 
and need inpatient rehabilitation to have focused memory work done. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says the enrollee's condition does not meet the Medicare guidelines.  The Plan says that the services needed 
may be provided safely in a lower 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 complexity of your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not 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 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 shower chair.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a shower chair. You say that the previous chair is broken. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says this item is not covered by Medicare. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that shower chairs are not covered because they are 
not primarily medical in nature.  
 
While a shower chair may be appropriate in this case, neither the Plan nor Medicare offers coverage of this 
item. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a shower chair.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for codes 99213, J1100, 97033, 97032, 97035, G0283, and 
A4556 billed for date of service June 3, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for codes 99213, J1100, 97033, 97032, 97035, G0283, and A4556. You say that you 
disagree with the Plan's denial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says payment for code 99213 is 
bundled into payment for code 96372. The codes are not payable as 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. The rules also state that providers may bill 
services with a -59 modifier if the service billed with the modifier indicates a distinct procedural service.   
 
In this case, we have confirmed that code 99213 is a column II code to column I code 96372. This claim has 
not been billed with an appropriate modifier to bypass the edit. The submitted medical records do not support 
that injection, dexamethasone sodium phosphate, 1 mg was administered; therefore, code J1100 is not 
supported. The medical records do not include documentation of the plan of care for the billed date of service; 
therefore, the GP modifier billed with code 97033 is not supported. We have confirmed that code 97032 is a 
column II code to column I code G0283. While code 97032 was billed with modifier -59, the medical records 
provided do not show that the service billed with the -59 modifier is a distinct procedural service. 
 
The medical records do not support that application of a modality to 1 or more areas; ultrasound, each 15 
minutes was performed; therefore, code 97035 is not supported. The medical records do not include 
documentation of the plan of care for the billed date of service, therefore the GP modifier billed with code 
G0283 is not supported. Code A4556 has a status indicator of P, which means payment for this code is 
always bundled into payment for other services not specified and no separate payment can be made. 
Based on the claim submitted, Medicare billing criteria have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pay for codes 99213, J1100, 97033, 97032, 97035, G0283, and A4556 billed for date of 
service June 3, 2022.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the definitive urine drug testing (UDT) for 22 or more drug 
classes (G0483) April 3, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the definitive UDT for 22 or more drug classes. You say that this testing was 
medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says ordering a multi-class panel of definitive 
(confirmation) urine drug tests that are not used in clinical management, exceeds the needs of the enrollee. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that definitive UDT is covered when 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 pay for the definitive UDT for 22 or more drug classes. Our reviewer says that the service is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found definitive 
testing was not indicated. There is no documentation of abnormal screening toxicology. The testing was 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 definitive UDT for 22 or more drug classes have not been met. Therefore, 
we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the definitive urine drug testing (UDT) for 22 or more drug 
classes (G0483) April 3, 2023.
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's level of care is beyond 
what can be expected at an alternative level of care such as a skilled nursing facility where the enrollee is only 
required to be seen by a physician once a month and specialized respiratory care is beyond equipment and 
staffing capabilities. The LTACH setting is necessary to perform the appropriate care and management of the 
complex need. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's records do not show that the services 
required can only be given in a hospital setting. The Plan says continued care needs include supplemental 
oxygen, intermittent hemodialysis, nutritional support, and physical therapy, when ready to leave the hospital 
services needed may be provided safely in a lower 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 the enrollee is receiving appropriate care in current acute care setting as provided by 
the Plan. Documentation does not support that LTACH services are medically appropriate at this time. 
 
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.