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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the inpatient hospital services provided on July 24, 2022, to 
August 3, 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 
provider documented that sepsis existed and was sufficient for coding. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says criteria were not met for the billed diagnosis 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 with primary diagnosis code A41.9, defined as sepsis, unspecified 
organism. 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 physician reviewer found that the enrollee underwent a shunt revision. She was 
then hospitalized and treated for presumed pneumonia. The enrollee continued to have a fever, so she was 
transferred to the appellant hospital for neurosurgical evaluation. No shunt issues were identified. The enrollee 
did develop hypoxia and a rash. She was thought to have ongoing pneumonia and a drug fever. The enrollee 
improved on a more tapered antibiotic regimen, steroids and diphenhydramine. There is no evidence that the 
enrollee had sepsis (i.e., hypotension, hypoperfusion, organ failure).  Therefore, the billing of diagnosis code 
A41.9 is not supported.  
 
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 the inpatient hospital services provided on July 24, 2022, to August 3, 2022, at the Diagnosis Related Group 
(DRG) originally billed.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for polycarbonate progressive lenses provided on June 27, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the polycarbonate progressive lenses. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says polycarbonate progressive lenses are not a covered benefit. 
 
Medicare covers one pair of conventional eyeglasses or contact lenses furnished after each cataract surgery 
with insertion of an IOL.  The Plan contract says that the Plan covers the Medicare-standard frames and lenses or contact lenses after 
cataract surgery up to the Medicare allowed amount. 
 
We looked at the file, the Medicare rules and the Plan's rules. The Plan covers Medicare-standard frames and 
lenses or contact lenses after cataract surgery up to the Medicare allowed amount. Based on this information, 
we decided that the Plan's rules for coverage of the polycarbonate progressive lenses have not been met. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for polycarbonate progressive lenses provided on 
June 27, 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 you still require extensive hands-on assistance from 
the nursing and therapy staffs at the hospital to get out of bed. You also say your provider says you will also 
need closer medical management of your current medical needs and issues. The Plan denied your request. The 
Plan says that the notes do not show that your care specifically requires the involvement of a doctor in the field 
of Rehabilitation Medicine; notes do not show that you have complex care needs that require a coordinated 
team approach; the notes do not show that you must have an intensive therapy program (3 hours a day, at least 
5 days a week) in order to improve self-care functioning.   
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 and can be provided in a 
lower level of care. You require treatment by multiple therapies, including physical therapy and occupational 
therapy, but this can be provided in a lower level of care. There is documentation that there is a reasonable 
expectation that you will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy 
program provided in an IRF, but the services required can be provided 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: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Fiasp (J1811). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the medication. You say that this is necessary for the enrollee. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the medication is not covered as a medical benefit under the Plan. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare Part B generally does not pay for self-
administered drugs. The self-administered drugs requested here are not among the types which are covered by 
Medicare Part B. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Fiasp (J1811).
Appeal type: Outpatient Mental Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the mental health services provided on May 24, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this provider is not 
eligible to enroll in Medicare. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare payment cannot be made to a provider that is 
not enrolled in the Medicare program. 
 
Review of the file and Medicare records indicates that the provider at issue is not enrolled in the Medicare 
program. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the mental health services provided on 
May 24, 2023.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Sprint peripheral nerve stimulator (PNS) (64555). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the Sprint PNS. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says this is 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 the Sprint PNS. Our reviewer says that 
the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found this procedure would be considered experimental/investigational for post-operative neck pain. 
 
   
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 Sprint PNS have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve the Sprint peripheral nerve stimulator (PNS) (64555).
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 requested IRF services are medically necessary. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the notes do not show that the enrollee's care specifically requires 
the involvement of a doctor in the field of Rehabilitation Medicine; the notes do not show that the enrollee has 
complex care needs that require a coordinated team approach; the notes do not show that the enrollee mush 
have an intensive therapy program (3 hours a day, at least 5 days a week) in order to improve self-care 
functioning.  
 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's 
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 therapy and/or 
occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. 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. 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the CardioMEMS procedure. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve CardioMEMS. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says this procedure is experimental/investigational. 
 
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 CardioMEMS. Our reviewer says that 
the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found there remains a dearth of randomized, blinded clinical studies examining long-term clinical 
outcomes to establish the value of CardioMEMS in patient management. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of CardioMEMS have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve the CardioMEMS procedure.
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 requested IRF services are medically necessary. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the notes do not show that the enrollee's care specifically requires 
the involvement of a doctor in the field of Rehabilitation Medicine; the notes do not show that the enrollee has 
complex care needs that require a coordinated team approach; the notes do not show that the enrollee must 
have an intensive therapy program (3 hours a day, at least 5 days a week) in order to improve self-care 
functioning.  
 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's 
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 therapy and/or 
occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. 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. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different 
level of care.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that continued care is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee no longer requires care in a SNF. 
 
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 the enrollee does not have daily skilled nursing needs that require the specialized 
skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional nurse. The enrollee does not have daily skilled therapy 
needs that require the specialized skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional therapist. The 
enrollee does not require daily skilled nursing or skilled therapy on an inpatient basis in a skilled nursing 
facility (SNF) setting. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of SNF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for surgical services (33405, 33464, 33641, 33426) provided on April 20, 
2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the surgical services. You say that these services were medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says that coverage criteria has not been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare health plans must make reasonable and 
diligent efforts to gather and forward to the IRE information regarding its decision to deny coverage or 
payment. 
 
The Plan has not made reasonable and diligent efforts to gather and forward to us information regarding their 
decision to deny your request. The plan's documentation did not articulate the reason for denial. The plan did 
not cite the Medicare rule or policy used to make the determination.  Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to 
pay for surgical services (33405, 33464, 33641, 33426) provided on April 20, 2023.  
 
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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Elenker upright walker. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Elenker upright walker. You say that you disagree with the Plan's denial. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested item is 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 Elenker upright walker. Our reviewer 
says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found you have impaired mobility and chronic back pain. The Plan approved a walker with 
adjustable height. The documentation does not support that the requested specific Elenker walker is medically 
reasonable or necessary. Therefore, you do not meet criteria for the requested device. 
 We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Elenker upright walker have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve Elenker upright walker.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve home health skilled nursing visits. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve home health skilled nursing visits. You say that due to your hand pain you 
are unable to care for yourself. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services are not medically 
necessary.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that home health care services may be covered if it is 
medically necessary for the enrollee to receive skilled nursing or therapy. A doctor must certify the need for 
home health care services. 
 
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 home health skilled nursing visits. Our 
reviewer says that the services are not medically reasonable and necessary. Our physician reviewer found the 
clinical documentation does not specify any recent medication or plan of care changes. The records do not 
show that skilled nursing services are required in the home setting to effectively provide treatment, care, or 
services in order to improve your condition, or to establish or perform a maintenance program to maintain your 
condition or to prevent deterioration. The services cannot be recommended 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 home health skilled nursing visits have not been met. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan does not have to pre-approve home health skilled nursing visits.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the laboratory services provided on February 06, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the laboratory services. You say that you are requesting reconsideration of the 
denied claim. 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 laboratory services 
provided on February 06, 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 services are medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the services the enrollee needs can be provided safely in their current 
LTACH facility.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies. While the medical 
record supports a need for physical or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive 
rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different level of care.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.