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 it is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the requirements for approval. 
 
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 hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The enrollee 
was admitted for spinal surgery and was transferred to skilled nursing on August 14, 2023. 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 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: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee meets IRF criteria and requires intensive 
inpatient rehabilitation with daily physician management, continuous specialized rehabilitation nursing, and 
intensive therapies to optimize mobility and strength while ensuring the restoration of functional status for a 
safe and sustainable discharge. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says admission to an IRF is not 
supported based on the records received.  
 
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 enrollees 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. While the enrollee may have a need for physical 
therapy 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 an IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 64488 billed for date of service April 21, 
2023.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 64488. You say that the claim is billed correctly and should be 
paid. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the number of units billed exceeds the maximum allowed.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that submitted claims in which the unit of service 
exceeds the MUE value cannot be paid when the MAI value is 3, unless there is evidence justifying the excess 
units.  
 
In this case, the MUE for CPT code 64488 is 1. The MAI value for this code is 3. You billed 2 units of this 
code, exceeding the MUE. You did not provide all the required evidence showing that the excess units were 
actually provided, were correctly coded, and were medically necessary. Based on this information, we decided 
that Medicare rules for coverage of procedure code 64488 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 64488 billed for date of service April 21, 2023.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve home health skilled nursing services. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve home health services. You say that the services are medically necessary for 
the enrollee. 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 services. Our reviewer 
says that the services are not medically reasonable and necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the 
enrollee does not have documented skilled nursing needs. As such, the requested home health skilled nursing 
services are not medically necessary or reasonable. 
 
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 services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve home health skilled nursing 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 a lower level of care is not sufficient or equipped to 
address the enrollee's needs related to the enrollee's comorbidities. You also say that a lower level of care will 
place the enrollee at a higher risk for further decomposition. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
enrollee's needs can be met at 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 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.
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 care is medically necessary for the enrollee. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's need can be met at 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 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.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve thermal destruction of intraosseous basivertebral nerve. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve thermal destruction of intraosseous basivertebral nerve. You say that 
thermal destruction of intraosseous basivertebral nerve is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says thermal destruction of intraosseous basivertebral nerve 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 thermal destruction of intraosseous 
basivertebral nerve. Our reviewer says that the requested thermal destruction of intraosseous basivertebral 
nerve is not considered medically reasonable and necessary. Our physician reviewer found that there is no 
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showing only Modic changes without facet degenerative joint disease or 
foraminal stenosis. The cause of pain is not clear. We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of thermal destruction of intraosseous basivertebral nerve have not been met. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve thermal destruction of intraosseous 
basivertebral nerve.
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 currently meets LTACH 
admission criteria. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there is no documentation that the enrollee will 
benefit from and improve with LTACH management. 
 
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 provided documentation indicates the enrollee is currently undergoing treatment 
at an acute care hospital for sepsis, in the setting of a prior stroke. The enrollee is currently on a tracheotomy 
collar. Decannulation seems unlikely. There is no evidence that the enrollee requires services that are not currently available.  As LTACHs and ACHs are licensed to provide the same level of care, there is no 
advantage in transferring the enrollee to the LTACH. Therefore, the reviewer found that the requested LTACH 
care 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 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 the inpatient hospital services provided on February 4, 2022, 
to February 21, 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. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says  the documentation did not validate the diagnosis. 
 
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 diagnosis code A41.81, defined as sepsis due to 
enterococcus. 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 with end-stage renal 
disease on dialysis presented to the hospital with lethargy and left arm pain and was found to have fluid 
overload from missing dialysis session and was treated with dialysis. The workup revealed positive blood 
cultures and he was started on antibiotics. The workup also revealed creatinine levels of 11 before dialysis 
(expected due to missed dialysis). The enrollees mental status improved with dialysis suggesting uremia was 
the cause. The enrollee had normal platelets, stable blood pressure, normal bilirubin, normal oxygenation. 
There was no evidence of life-threatening organ failure directly related to a dysregulated response to a severe 
infection to meet Sepsis 3 criteria. Therefore, there was insufficient support made for using code, A41.81 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 the inpatient hospital services provided on February 4, 2022, to February 21, 2022, at the Diagnosis Related 
Group (DRG) originally billed.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the Tempus xF liquid biopsy (81455) provided on September 
27, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the Tempus xF liquid biopsy. You say that this testing was medically necessary.  
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this test is not FDA approved. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that Medicare nationally covers NGS testing, when 
the test is FDA approved or has clearance as a companion in vitro diagnostic. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Research shows that the Tempus xF liquid biopsy is not FDA 
approved nor does it have clearance as a companion in vitro diagnostic. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the Tempus xF liquid biopsy have not been met. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pay for the Tempus xF liquid biopsy (81455) provided on September 27, 2022.
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 you are not ready for discharge. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says your records do not show the need for skilled services daily. Services needed may 
be provided safely in a lower level of care. 
 
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 you do not have daily skilled nursing needs that require the specialized skill, 
knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional nurse. You do not have daily skilled therapy needs that 
require the specialized skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional therapist. You do not require 
daily skilled nursing and/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: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the genetic testing provided on February 15, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the genetic testing billed. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says panel 
testing should be billed using one CPT code on the claim. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that if one laboratory procedure evaluates multiple genes 
using a next generation sequencing (NGS) procedure, the laboratory shall report only one unit of service of one 
genomic sequencing procedure, molecular multianalyte assay, multianalyte assay with algorithmic analysis, or 
proprietary laboratory analysis code. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. This was an NGS panel that was not billed with a single panel code 
as required. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the genetic testing billed have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the genetic testing provided on 
February 15, 2023.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve insertion of anterior segment aqueous drainage device 
into the trabecular meshwork, without external reservoir, and without concomitant cataract removal, one or 
more (0671T). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve insertion of anterior segment aqueous drainage device. You say that this is 
medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says records do not show that the enrollee is 
taking an ocular hypotensive medication. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. 
 
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 insertion of anterior segment aqueous 
drainage device. Our reviewer says that the enrollee does not meet criteria for coverage. Our physician 
reviewer found the enrollee is not taking any ocular hypotensive eye drops. The enrollee had selective laser 
trabeculoplasty (SLT) laser treatment, and the intraocular pressure was noted to improve and be at target, not 
needing any glaucoma eye drops. Since the provider has deemed the intraocular pressure to be at goal and not 
needing ocular hypotensive eye drops, therefore the Hydrus stent would not be considered 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 insertion of anterior segment aqueous drainage device have not been met. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve insertion of anterior segment aqueous 
drainage device into the trabecular meshwork, without external reservoir, and without concomitant cataract 
removal, one or more (0671T).
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 IRF admission criteria due to 
current physical and occupational deficits, along with comorbidities. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says the enrollee's needs can be met at 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 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.