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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you are appealing the denial. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says that the enrollee can receive the necessary care in a skilled nursing 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 that 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 does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational 
therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. Medically necessary care can be provided in a 
different level of care. There is not a reasonable expectation that this 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: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve home health aide services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the aide services. You say that the services are medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services are not medically necessary.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that HHA services may be covered if it is medically 
necessary for the enrollee to receive skilled nursing or therapy.  
 
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 aide services. Our reviewer says 
that the services are not medically reasonable and necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the provided records do not document any plans or orders for skilled home health nursing or therapy services. As skilled 
home health nursing and therapy services are not being provided, home health aide services would not be 
covered by Medicare.  
 
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 aide services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve home health aide services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a ventilator (E0466). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a ventilator. You say that the services are necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says based on the documentation provided, coverage criteria has not been met. 
 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 reviewer says that the 
services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found provided records document that the home 
ventilator is being requested for use in an intelligent volume assured pressure support (IVAPS) mode which is a 
modality that could be provided by a bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) device with average volume 
assured pressure support (AVAPS) and a back-up rate. Provided records do not document trial and failure of a 
BiPAP device with AVAPS and a back-up rate. 
 
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 (E0466).
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a pneumatic compression device. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a pneumatic compression device. You say that the services are necessary. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says based on the documentation provided, coverage criteria has not 
been met. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that PCD coded as E0650 or E0651 is covered for both 
primary and secondary lymphedema in beneficiaries with chronic and severe lymphedema when certain 
requirements 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 a pneumatic compression device. Our 
reviewer says that the services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has no 
ulcers and has not received conservative treatment for the lower extremity swelling.  
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 pneumatic compression device have not been met. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pre-approve a pneumatic compression device.
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's medical and therapy needs could be met 
in a skilled mursing unit.  
 
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: 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 your need this care to return to an independent 
lifestyle. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says medical records do not support the need for an IRF 
admission and, your needs can be provided at another setting.  
 
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 medical, rehabilitation, and nursing needs does not require 
IRF care with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitative care. Your rehabilitation needs can be safely 
provided in an alternate 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 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 long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the enrollee will greatly benefit from an 
LTACH level of care and is currently stable for discharge. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
enrollee is receiving appropriate inpatient acute care and does not require transfer to an LTACH. 
 
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 does not require services at the LTACH that are not already 
available at the current facility. There are no services at the LTACH that the enrollee requires that are not 
already available and covered at the current facility. Transfer to the LTACH would not be clinically 
advantageous and completion of treatment at the current facility is 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 the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for inpatient hospital services provided on December 8, 2022, to 
December 10, 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 codes. 
 
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 principal diagnosis code A41.9, described as sepsis, 
unspecified organism, and secondary diagnosis codes R65.20 and J96.01, described as severe sepsis without 
septic shock, and acute 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 documentation does 
not support the billed codes. Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee was evaluated in the emergency 
department for shortness of breath, in the setting of known chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).  He 
was found to have influenza A. He was treated for Influenza A and a COPD exacerbation. There is no evidence 
of sepsis (i.e., hypotension, hypoperfusion, organ failure). There is no evidence of respiratory failure. As such, 
the billing of A41.9, J96.01, and R65.20 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 inpatient hospital services provided on December 8, 2022, to December 10, 2022, at the Diagnosis Related 
Group (DRG) originally billed.
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 meet the admission criteria for an IRF. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the services you need can be provided safely in other settings, for example, 
a skilled nursing facility (SNF) or home with home health.  
 
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. Your medical problems 
are stable and there are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. You do not require treatment by multiple 
therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy 
program. While the medical record supports a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no 
documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. 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 IRF admission is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the criteria for the IRF admission.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found 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 
does not support that he 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 3 visits weekly to regain or maintain his 
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 the enrollee's needs will not be met at a lower level 
of care. IRF care will provide the needed medical attention for the enrollee to avoid further decline and 
improve overall quality of life. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says criteria for IRF admission have 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 the complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical, and rehabilitation needs do not 
require an acute 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, and 
an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While the medical records support a need for physical 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 an office visit (99214) and destruction of lesions 
(17004, 17110, 11102, 11103) with a dermatologist to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve an office visit and destruction of lesions. You say that you disagree with the 
denial and request continuity of care with the requested dermatologist. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says you must use network providers to get your medical care and services. There are no active treatments 
going on with the OON provider. 
 
Medicare rules generally allow plans to restrict enrollees to using plan providers as long as there are plan 
providers available to meet enrollees needs. Your contract with the Plan says that, with few exceptions, you 
must use contract providers for care.  
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of an office visit and destruction of lesions have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve an office visit (99214) and destruction of lesions (17004, 17110, 11102, 11103) 
with a dermatologist to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Ozempic. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the drug. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that self-administered 
drugs do not fall under Medicare Part B coverage. 
 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 Ozempic.  
 
Benefits for the drug may be available under Medicare Part D. Contact the Plan that administers Part D benefits 
for further information concerning any benefits and appeal rights.