Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a group 3 power wheelchair with multiple power 
options. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the services. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says wheelchair electronics cannot be covered as it is not medically necessary to control the 
requested power options through the joystick (drive interface). 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that a PMD will not be covered if the patient does not 
have mobility deficit that impairs their participation in MRADLs, the patients condition can be ameliorated by 
a walker, cane or manual wheelchair, or the patient is not capable of safely operating the requested PMD.  
 
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 medically reasonable or necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee 
does not have high risk for skin breakdown, use a catheter intermittently, have spasticity or require an 
alternative means of managing power drive. The enrollee is able to ambulate with assistance and uses a manual 
wheelchair.  
 
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 a group 3 power wheelchair with multiple power options.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an office visit provided on June 07, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for an office visit. You say that the visit was medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says that unauthorized, out-of-network care is not covered. 
 
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 provider of the item(s)/service(s) at issue in this appeal is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan 
did not pre-approve the item(s)/service(s) at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay 
for the item(s)/service(s). Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an office visit provided 
on June 07, 2023.
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 enrollee needs rehab to walk up the stairs as they 
require stairs to be walked through. You say that the enrollee does not have any other family members around 
in the area to serve as a caregiver. You say that the enrollee needs intensive therapy to return to their prior level 
of function. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an IRF admission 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 the enrollees 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 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 provided on December 18, 2022, 
to December 22, 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 the 
claim is billed correctly and should be paid. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says documentation does 
not support the billed code. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report inpatient hospital services with the appropriate DRG, which is based, in part, on the 
reported principal and secondary diagnosis codes.   
 
In this case, you billed the inpatient services provided with secondary diagnosis code I21.A1, described as 
myocardial infarction type 2. We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the 
relevant Medicare rules to determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pay for the inpatient 
hospital services at the DRG originally billed. Our reviewer says that documentation does not support the billed 
code. Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee is a 68-year-old female who presented to the hospital with 
shortness of breath. She was diagnosed and treated with acute heart failure and treated with Lasix. 
Electrocardiogram (ECG) showed normal sinus rhythm without signs of infarction. The enrollee did not exhibit 
signs or symptoms of myocardial infarction nor was there evidence in the ECG to support this diagnosis. The 
elevated troponin was likely related to the primary diagnosis. Therefore, the code, I21.A1 is not supported for 
this admission.   
 
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 18, 2022, to December 22, 2022, at the Diagnosis Related 
Group (DRG) originally billed.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve destruction of first incompetent vein of arm or leg using 
radiofrequency and imaging guidance (36475), and removal of varicose veins of arm or leg, 10-20 incisions 
(37765). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve destruction of first incompetent vein of arm or leg using radiofrequency and 
imaging guidance, and removal of varicose veins of arm or leg, 10-20 incisions. You say that this is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that there is no documentation submitted showing that 
the enrollee's vein is greater than 4 millimeters. Also, the enrollee does not have active ulceration, bleeding, or 
phlebitis. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that if there are no specific coverage rules for an item 
or service, then that item or service will be covered when it is 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 destruction of first incompetent vein of 
arm or leg using radiofrequency and imaging guidance, and removal of varicose veins of arm or leg, 10-20 
incisions. Our reviewer says that the requested items/services are considered medically reasonable and 
necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found there is satisfactory documentation of significant 
symptoms attributable to the veins to be treated recalcitrant to conservative efforts. There is documentation of 
pedal pulses, patent deep veins, lower extremity varicosities and severe reflux in the left great saphenous 
vein. The treatments planed appear to be reasonable and medically necessary. The planed treatments would be 
expected to improve the patients symptoms and quality of life. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of destruction of first incompetent vein of arm or leg using radiofrequency and 
imaging guidance, and removal of varicose veins of arm or leg, 10-20 incisions have been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan has to pre-approve destruction of first incompetent vein of arm or leg using 
radiofrequency and imaging guidance (36475), and removal of varicose veins of arm or leg, 10-20 incisions 
(37765).  
 
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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home visit (99349) provided on August 22, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the home visit (99349). You say that the service was medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says that unauthorized, out-of-network care is not covered. 
 
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 provider of the item(s)/service(s) at issue in this appeal is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan 
did not pre-approve the item(s)/service(s) at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay 
for the item(s)/service(s). Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home visit (99349) 
provided on August 22, 2023.
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 an IRF admission is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee can safely receive the services they need in other settings, for 
example a skilled nursing facility (SNF), home with home health and home physical 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 in this case, the complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs 
do not require an acute rehab 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 enrollee continues to have a need for skilled 
therapy with ongoing safety concerns and a potential for functional improvement. However, the documentation 
doesnt support that they would meet criteria for admission to an acute inpatient rehabilitation facility. There is 
no indication that the enrollee would require skilled rehabilitation in an IRF, participating in rehab services 15 
hours a week, under the supervision of a physician with at least three visits weekly to regain or maintain her 
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: 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 to an IRF is medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says you do not meet the Medicare 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 your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not require an 
acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. 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. 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 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 enrollee meets the medical management criteria 
and the need for physician oversight of therapy and medical needs. You also say that the enrollee's strength and 
endurance has decreased and is under the care of a orthopedic surgeon. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says based on the available information, admission to IRF is not reasonable and necessary, as the enrollee's 
condition does not meet the Medicare rules.  
 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. The enrollee 
was admitted for surgical repair of a hip fracture after a fall. Medical problems are stable. 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 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. 
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 acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: ER
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an emergency department visit (procedure 99285) provided 
on July 24, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for an emergency department visit (procedure 99285). You say that procedure code 
99285 is appropriate based on the services performed. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the records 
do not support the services at issue in this case. 
 
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 code 99285 is emergency department visit for the evaluation 
and management of a patient, which requires a medically appropriate history and/or examination and high level 
of medical decision making. 
 
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 an emergency department visit (procedure 99285). Our 
reviewer says that the service at issue in this case is not supported by the medical records. Our reviewer found 
the documentation supported an appropriate history and examination; However, the documentation does not 
sufficiently support a high level of medical decision-making as the enrollee was stable.  
 
We looked at this coder's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of an emergency department visit (procedure 99285) have not been met. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an emergency department visit (procedure 99285) 
provided on July 24, 2023.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve continued inpatient psychiatric level of care as of 
January 11, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve inpatient psychiatric care. You say that medical management is imperative 
until the enrollee is able to go home with services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's 
care can be provided safely in another setting. 
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that inpatient psychiatric services may be covered if the 
patient requires active treatment.  
 
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 inpatient psychiatric care. Our reviewer 
says that the enrollee does not meet criteria for continued inpatient psychiatric level of care. Our physician 
reviewer found it is not expected that this enrollee will improve in a reasonable period of time beyond the date 
in question as the enrollee did not have suicidal or homicidal ideation, auditory hallucinations, or visual 
hallucinations. The enrollee was compliant with treatment while not showing any acute threats to safety. It does 
not appear medically necessary and reasonable to have psychiatric care provided at the acute inpatient level of 
care rather than 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 inpatient psychiatric care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve continued inpatient psychiatric level of care as of January 11, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Sprint peripheral nerve stimulator (PNS). 
 
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 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 these services. Our reviewer says that 
the services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the requested Sprint PNS device is 
considered experimental for the treatment of chronic pain. The services are therefore 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 Sprint peripheral nerve stimulator (PNS).
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 this is medically necessary for the enrollee. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's current medical condition does not require evaluation and 
supervision by rehabilitation physician three times a week. 
 
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 provided documentation does not indicate that the enrollee has complex nursing 
or rehabilitation needs. The reviewer found that while the enrollee has a need for therapy, there is no 
documentation of a need for an intensive rehabilitation program. The reviewer also found that 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. Therefore, the reviewer found that the requested IRF 
admission is not medically reasonable or necessary. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of 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.