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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a FreeStyle Libre 2 reader. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the FreeStyle Libre 2 reader. You say that the submitted records support the 
medical necessity for the CGM. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet criteria 
for coverage of a FreeStyle Libre 2 reader. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that therapeutic CGMs may be considered reasonable and 
necessary for enrollees with diabetes who meet the criteria referenced 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 the FreeStyle Libre 2 reader. Our 
reviewer says that this item is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found coverage criteria for 
CGM require insulin use or low blood glucose sugar. The enrollee is not having low blood glucose sugar that 
we are told of and is not on medications that should not cause low blood glucose sugar. Although the CGM 
may help the enrollee, coverage criteria are not met. 
 
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 FreeStyle Libre 2 reader have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve a FreeStyle Libre 2 reader.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the lab panel provided on June 27, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the panel. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the claim is not payable 
as billed. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that a test panel is a single test with multiple 
components and is characterized by a single unit of service (UOS =1). A panel cannot be unbundled and billed 
as individual components regardless of the fact that the test reports multiple individual pathogens and/or 
targets. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The lab panel in this case was billed with multiple codes and not one 
unit of one code as required by A58726. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of the panel have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the lab 
panel provided on June 27, 2023.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has 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 Medicare Criteria and will benefit 
for Acute Inpatient Rehabilitation and this care cannot be accomplished at a lower level of care. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the records do not show the enrollee requires the intensity of services 
provided in the IRF setting. The Plan says services may be provided 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 found to be medically reasonable and necessary for this enrollee. Our physician reviewer 
found The Plan erred in its denial of IRF admission. 
 
Per Medicare Benefit Policy Manual Ch 1, 110, and 42 CFR 412.622, the medical record overall significantly 
complies with the various documentation requirements for IRF admission (e.g., as best summarized by the 
physical therapy (PT) note from October 23, 2023 as well as the occupational therapy (OT) and family 
medicine notes from October 24, 2023).  Indeed, this beneficiarys condition is in fact complex and fragile, and 
there is every reason to expect that the enrollee will participate in and benefit from IRF-level services to 
include at minimum PT, OT, respiratory therapy (RT), physician oversight of respiratory status and 
polypharmacy, and case manager coordination of any additional services that might be needed to make a 
sustainable return home, as well as avoid preventable readmissions to the acute hospital. 
 
Therefore, the requested inpatient rehabilitation facility admission is approved. 
 
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 been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-approve 
acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.  
 
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: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve prostate artery embolization (PAE) (36245, 36247, 
36246). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve PAE. You say that the services are necessary. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says medical necessity has not been established. Therefore, coverage criteria have not been met. 
 
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 PAE. Our reviewer says that the 
requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found prostatic arterial embolization (PAE) is considered an experimental technique to treat 
symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Very limited studies have demonstrated possible short-term 
safety and efficacy. The most recent AUA guidelines do not recommend this procedure outside of a clinical trial setting due to the heterogeneity in the available literature and safety concerns regarding radiation 
exposure, postembolization syndrome, vascular access, technical feasibility, higher clinical failure rate 
compared with more traditional methods. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of PAE have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pre-approve prostate artery embolization (PAE) (36245, 36247, 36246).
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 is stable and ready for 
transfer to a LTACH and be adequately cared for. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's 
continued care needs include tube feeds and speech therapy for swallowing, weaning off supplemental oxygen 
and BiPap, and monitoring kidney function and being received at the current hospital. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that LTACH services are covered if they are medically 
necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the LTACH services. Our reviewer says 
that the requested LTACH care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee is receiving appropriate care in current acute care setting as provided by 
Health Plan. Documentation does not support that LTACH services are medically appropriate at this time. We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for code A4222 billed for date of service May 29, 2023.  
 You asked the Plan to pay for code A4222. You say that you disagree with the Plan's denial. 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 A4222 is 0. The MAI value for this code is 3. You billed 4 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 A4222 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pay for code A4222 billed for date of service May 29, 2023.
Appeal type: Testing
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the testing services rendered on May 5, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for these services. You say that you disagree with the denial. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the billed diagnosis codes are not appropriate. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that claims must be billed with the most precise diagnosis 
code. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The billed diagnosis codes are for a left-side and right-side diagnosis. 
A bilateral diagnosis code is available and more appropriate than the billed codes. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pay for the testing services rendered on May 5, 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 admission is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the denial of IRF care is correct.  
 
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 rehab hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. You do not require 
treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, at an intensive 
rehabilitation therapy program. You continue to have a need for skilled therapy with ongoing safety concerns 
and a potential for functional improvement; however, the documentation does not support that you would meet 
criteria for admission to an acute inpatient rehabilitation facility. There is no indication that you 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 functional status. You 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: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the lab panel provided on June 15, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the panel. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the claim is not payable 
as billed. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that if a laboratory procedure produces multiple 
reportable test results, only a single HCPCS/CPT code shall be reported for the procedure. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The genetic testing in this case was billed with multiple codes and 
not one code as required by Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of the panel have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the lab 
panel provided on June 15, 2023.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that admission is medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the denial of LTACH service is correct. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that LTACH services are covered if they are medically 
necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the LTACH services. Our reviewer says 
that the requested LTACH care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee is receiving appropriate care in the current acute care hospital 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 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: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for lab services provided on April 25, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the lab services. You say that you disagree with the denial. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says you billed with an incorrect place of service on the claim. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that, for lab services, the POS code must reflect the 
location in which the sample was taken. POS code 81 is used to describe samples taken by the laboratory 
directly.  
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of the lab services have not been met. Specifically, this claim was billed with the laboratory POS 
code. The records do not support that the sample was taken in a laboratory setting. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pay for lab services provided on April 25, 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 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 enrollee is medically stable as described above and does not need physical 
medicine and rehabilitation (PMR) physicians supervision 3 times a week in an IRF. There is no acute medical 
complexity. No acute rehab nursing needs documented. At the current functional level, the enrollee needs 
routine physical therapy (PT), occupational therapy (OT) and does not need intensive therapies consisting of at 
least 3 hours of therapy per day at least 5 days per week with multidisciplinary approach in an IRF. Document 
does not support necessity for admission to an IRF. The complexity of the enrollees medical, rehab, and 
nursing needs (combined complexity does not require acute hospital inpatient rehab stay with an 
interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitative care. IRF admission is not necessary and is not reasonable. The 
enrollees rehab needs can be safely provided in an alternate and low intensity setting such as in a skilled 
nursing facility (SNF).  
 
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: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the laboratory panel provided on April 12, 2023, billed with 
codes 87631, 87798, 87486, 87581, U0003 and U0005. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the laboratory panel billed. You say that this testing was necessary and is 
supported in the medical record. 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 a 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 a laboratory 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 laboratory 
panel billed have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the laboratory 
panel provided on April 12, 2023, billed with codes 87631, 87798, 87486, 87581, U0003 and U0005.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for inpatient hospital services rendered from August 20, 2022, to 
September 3, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. You say that this should be paid for. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says the denied items and/or services were determined to be inclusive to either room and 
board/critical care/procedure charges. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
 
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 the services. Our reviewer says that the services at issue in 
this case were not supported by the medical records. Our reviewer found that the denied charges were 
$4,969.13 were denied correctly. The charges describe supplies, such as dressing, catheter supplies, vented 
solutions, and ointments. These charges would be inclusive to the room and board charges, and not appropriate 
to be billed separately. Additionally, the charges also include venous blood draws, Accucheks, blood draws 
from capillary, arterial or vascular access devices regardless of practitioner performing the draw and regardless 
of whether arterial, venous or capillary blood is drawn. Each blood draw or collection is part of the lab test and 
is not separately reimbursable. 
 
We looked at this coder'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 pay for inpatient hospital services rendered from August 20, 2022, to September 3, 2022.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that admission is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says your records do not show that you have complex rehabilitation needs that require 
frequent evaluation by a rehabilitation physician.  
 
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 rehab hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. You do not require 
treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, at an intensive 
rehabilitation therapy program. You continue to have a need for skilled therapy with ongoing safety concerns 
and a potential for functional improvement; however, the documentation does not support that you would meet 
criteria for admission to an acute inpatient rehabilitation facility.  There is no indication that you 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 functional status.  You 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.