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

 
We decided that the Plan has 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 require an LTACH level 
of care for at least 25 days and is currently stable for discharge to that level of care. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says that criteria for admission to the LTACH have not been met. 
 
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 considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found at this time the enrollee requires continued hospitalization for ventilator weaning. Multiple 
attempts in the short term acute care hospital have been unsuccessful. The enrollee no longer requires the short 
term acute care hospital but cannot be placed in a skilled nursing facility or other setting. Transfer to the 
LTACH is medically reasonable, necessary and appropriate. 
 
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 been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to 
pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) 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: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve custom fabricated abutments including placement 
(D6057 x 2) and abutment supported crowns (D6060 x 2). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the dental services. You say that after an infection you required dental 
implants, and they need to be finished. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says these services are not 
covered benefits under your dental plan. 
 
Medicare generally does not cover dental services. However, the Plan offers a dental benefit that exceeds 
Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plans coverage rules apply in this case. 
 
 Though the Plan offers a dental benefit in excess of Medicare coverage, the requested items or services are not 
among those covered under this benefit. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve 
custom fabricated abutments including placement (D6057 x 2) and abutment supported crowns (D6060 x 2).
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve SNF care. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that the enrollee is a fall risk and has no one to care for 
them at home. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request is not medically necessary. 
 
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 that the enrollee does not have skilled nursing needs that require the specialized skill, 
knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional nurse. The enrollee does have skilled therapy needs that 
require the specialized skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional therapist. The enrollee does not 
require daily skilled nursing and/or skilled therapy on an inpatient basis in a 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 SNF care.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for inpatient hospital services provided on March 6, 2023, to 
March 18, 2023, 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 E43 is 
supported in the documentation, therefore the claim should be paid at the DRG originally billed. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says E43 is not supported in the documentation. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report inpatient hospital services with the appropriate DRG, which is based, in part, on the 
reported principal and secondary diagnosis codes.  
 
In this case, you billed the inpatient services provided with secondary diagnosis E43, defined as unspecified 
severe protein-calorie malnutrition. 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 diagnosis code E43 is not supported in 
the documentation. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee is a 75-year-old who was treated in the hospital 
with a urinary tract infection (UTI). The evaluation revealed a body mass index (BMI) of 23.5, mild bitemporal 
muscle wasting, generalized weakness, and reduced food intake. The enrollee's family reported weight loss of 
12% in one month, however, the weight loss was not documented via objective measurements from physician 
encounters to verify the degree of weight loss. Also, the provided physician documentation did not describe an 
order for nutritional support. 
 
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 March 6, 2023, to March 18, 2023, 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 the enrollee is not well enough to be home alone and 
is a high risk of falling and sustaining additional injury and illness. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 
based on Medicare guidelines, the IRF services requested do 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 enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The enrollee 
was admitted for urinary tract infection and bacteremia. Medical problems are stable. There are no complex 
nursing or rehabilitation needs. The enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either 
physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While the medical 
record supports a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive 
rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different level of care. There is not a 
reasonable expectation that the enrollee will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive 
rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the Urine polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing billed 
with codes 87652, 87798 x13, 87799-59, 87900, 87481, 87500, and 87640 for date of service September 14, 
2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the Urine PCR testing. You say that you have provided medical records to 
support payment for these lab services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you should have billed a 
single panel code instead of unbundling all of the individual codes for this testing. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that for tests for infectious agents, a single laboratory 
procedure shall be reported as one unit of service whether it generates one or multiple results. Multiple codes should only be used when multiple procedures, multiple methodologies, or multiple test kits are medically 
necessary and used to perform the test.  
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The documentation supports that this panel used the nucleic acid 
probe technique. There is no evidence that multiple procedures, multiple methodologies, or multiple kits were 
used in this case. As such, a single code with one unit of service should be used. Based on this information, we 
decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the testing panel have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pay for the Urine polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing billed with codes 87652, 
87798 x13, 87799-59, 87900, 87481, 87500, and 87640 for date of service September 14, 2023.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a CardioMEMS device. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a CardioMEMS device. 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 a CardioMEMS device. Our reviewer 
says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the CardioMEMS device ae still on an investigational phase and of uncertain benefit 
to the enrollee. 
 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 CardioMEMS device have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve a CardioMEMS device.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the GeneSight testing rendered on June 21, 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 services were not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that pharmacogenomics testing is covered when 
specific criteria 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 pay for these services. Our reviewer says that the 
services were not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the submitted records do not clearly 
document the use of or intent to prescribe a drug that has known drug-gene interactions that require a 
pharmacogenomics test to define the safe use of the drug for the enrollee. The criteria for coverage are not met and the GeneSight testing was therefore not reasonable or medically necessary. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of these services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pay for the GeneSight testing rendered on June 21, 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 the enrollee meets all the conditions for 
approval of an LTACH admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet 
Medicare guidelines required for approval of an LTACH admission. 
 
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 there are no services at the LTACH that are not available at the current acute care 
hospital where the enrollee is receiving care. Continued care in the short-term acute hospital is appropriate until 
the enrollee is stable for transfer to 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 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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for the outpatient surgery (62323) provided on 
December 12, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for the outpatient surgery (62323). You say that the cost share is 
wrong. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this cost sharing was charged correctly. 
 
The rules say a plan must disclose to its enrollees in clear, accurate terms all cost sharing information (such as 
copayments, deductibles and coinsurance). Your contract with the Plan clearly says that you must pay a $340 
copayment for outpatient hospital services. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $340 copayment for the outpatient surgery (62323). This item/service falls 
within the outpatient hospital services benefit category. This means that you have been asked to pay the correct 
amount based on your contract with the Plan. This cost sharing is a contractual obligation you agreed to pay when you enrolled in the Plan. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for 
the outpatient surgery (62323) provided on December 12, 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 the enrollee requires rehabilitation services before 
they are able to return home safely. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an IRF admission is not 
medically necessary, but skilled therapies as an outpatient or at a skilled nursing facility may be approved upon 
request.  
 
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 and there are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. The enrollee does not 
require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an 
intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While the medical record supports a need for physical and/or 
occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. Medically necessary 
care can be provided in a different level of care. There is not a reasonable expectation that the enrollee will be 
able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: 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 IRF care is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says IRF care is not medically necessary.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of your nursing, medical, and rehabilitation needs do not require an 
acute 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, 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 you 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a group 3 power wheelchair and accessories. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the durable medical equipment (DME). You say that the services are 
medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services are not medically necessary. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the durable medical equipment (DME). 
Our physician reviewer found the enrollee does not have high risk for skin breakdown, use a catheter 
intermittently, have spasticity or require an alternative means of managing power drive and the enrollee does 
not have a qualifying diagnosis for a group 3 power wheelchair.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the durable medical equipment (DME) have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a group 3 power wheelchair and accessories.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Volara system. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the system. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says it cannot be said that this is reasonable and 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 system. Our reviewer says that the 
requested services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer 
found that the enrollee has cerebral oculofacial skeletal syndrome with chronic hypoxic and hypercarbic 
respiratory failure. The enrollee has a tracheostomy and is on a home ventilator. The Volara device has 3 
components: Airway oscillation, positive end-expiratory pressure, and nebulization.  The device has not been 
studied enough to show benefit in the treatment of any chronic lung disease.  There is inadequate evidence that this device is as, or more, effective than other devices in achieving airways clearance. Medicare does not cover 
use of the Volara in the outpatient 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 system have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve the Volara system.