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 non-surgical management of pelvic fracture after a fall. 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: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for home health services provided from October 2, 2022, 
through October 31, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for home health services. You say that the claim was submitted in the wrong format 
which led to the late submission of the NOA. You say that medically necessary services were provided, and the 
claim should be reprocessed for payment.  The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the NOA was not 
received timely. As such, this final claim was correctly denied.  
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that an NOA must be submitted within 5 days of the start of 
care date for home health services. NOAs which are received more than 30 days from the timely filing date 
result in no payment being made for the episode of care.  
 
In this case, the start of care date is September 2, 2022. The NOA was not received by the Plan until January 9, 
2023. As more than 30 days passed between the timely filing date and the NOA receipt, no payment can be 
made on this claim. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for home health services provided 
from October 2, 2022, through October 31, 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 you are requesting reconsideration for the denial of 
an IRF admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 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 do not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The clinical 
documentation shows that the enrollee requires ongoing physical and occupational therapy, but it does not 
show that the enrollee requires or would tolerate an intensive rehabilitation regimen in an IRF 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an implantable loop recorder (ILR). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve ILR. You say that there is concern for undiagnosed atrial fibrillation. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet criteria for this service. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules state that ILRs may be covered when 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 ILR. Our reviewer says that the enrollee 
does not meet criteria for an ILR. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has no history of atrial fibrillation, 
nor were any significant cardiac arrhythmias noted on electrocardiographic monitoring. A recent randomized 
clinical trial noted that continuous monitoring for atrial fibrillation with an ILR was not superior to usual care 
in reducing stroke or systemic embolism among patients at high risk of stroke but without a known prior 
history of atrial fibrillation. This would not be considered medically reasonable and 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 ILR have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pre-approve an implantable loop recorder (ILR).
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for a duplex scan rendered on February 11, 2023. 
 
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 that an appropriate diagnosis code was not billed. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that if there are no specific coverage rules for an item 
or service, then that item or service will be covered when it is 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 pay for the services. Our reviewer says that the 
requested services are considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer 
found that the enrollee had right lower extremity pain, and had a duplex venous ultrasound on this date of 
service. The enrollee's history is appropriate for the scan. The chart notes show an appropriate indication for the 
exam. 
 
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 services have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for a 
duplex scan rendered on February 11, 2023.  
 
If the Plan does not agree with our decision, they can ask us to open a case again. We only open a case again 
if we believe there was a mistake or if there is new information to review. The Plan has to show us the mistake 
and/or send us the new information. This does not happen often. If we decide to open the case again, we will 
send you a letter.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a power seat lift mechanism. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a power seat lift mechanism. You say that the item is medically necessary. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the item is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that a seat lift mechanism is covered if all of the conditions 
listed in the Medicare rules section 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 power seat lift mechanism. Our 
reviewer says that the item is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee is able to rise from a chair and does not have severe hip or knee arthritis or neuromuscular disease. 
 
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 power seat lift mechanism have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve a power seat lift mechanism.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the genetic testing provided on August 10, 2022, billed with 
codes 81225, 81227, 81230, 81231, 81291, 81328, 81355, 81479. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the genetic testing billed. You say that this should be paid for. 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 
August 10, 2022, billed with codes 81225, 81227, 81230, 81231, 81291, 81328, 81355, 81479.
Appeal type: Testing
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for the ultrasound provided on January 30, 
2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for the ultrasound. You say that this service was requested by your 
provider. 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 $140 
copayment for outpatient diagnostic tests, including ultrasounds. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $140 copayment for the ultrasound. This item/service falls within the outpatient 
diagnostic tests, including ultrasounds 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. However, since the allowed amount is less than the standard copayment, you 
only owe $133.07. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for the 
ultrasound provided on January 30, 2023.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee needs continued therapy to gain 
mobility. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the IRF services you are requesting 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. 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. 
 
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 due to the enrollee's ongoing and active 
comorbidities the services are medically necessary to maximize their recovery. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the criteria for admission to an IRF.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies. While the medical 
record supports a need for physical or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive 
rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different level of care. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for ophthalmology services provided on January 18, 2023, by an 
out-of-network (OON) provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for ophthalmology services. You say that other claims have been paid. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says this was not authorized. 
 
Medicare rules say that plans can require enrollees to get care from network providers. The contract with the 
Plan says that the Plan has to pay for care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving emergencies, out of area urgent care and pre-approved care. 
 
The requested provider in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan had network providers 
available who could have provided the items/services at issue in this appeal. The Plan did not pre-approve the 
item/service at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay for these items/services. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for ophthalmology services provided on January 18, 
2023, by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for two additional units of procedure code 88360 rendered on 
January 31, 2023. 
 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 there was no specific rationale for the additional units. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate CPT code. 
 
In this case, the CPT Code Manual definition of code 88360 is "Morphometric analysis, tumor 
immunohistochemistry (eg, Her-2/neu, estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor), quantitative or 
semiquantitative, per specimen, each single antibody stain procedure; manual." 
 
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 while there is documentation that the 
additional services were rendered, there is no documentation showing that the services were medically 
reasonable or necessary. 
 
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 two additional units of procedure code 88360 rendered on January 31, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for initial hospital care (procedure code 99223) rendered on 
August 9, 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 medical records submitted do not support a comprehensive history. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate CPT code. 
 
In this case, the CPT Code Manual definition of code 99223 is "Initial hospital care, per day, for the evaluation 
and management of a patient, which requires these 3 key components: A comprehensive history; A 
comprehensive examination; and Medical decision making of high complexity. Counseling and/or coordination 
of care with other physicians, other qualified health care professionals, or agencies are provided consistent with 
the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the problem(s) requiring admission are of high severity. Typically, 70 minutes are spent at the bedside and on the patient's hospital floor 
or unit." 
 
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 enrollee presented with an 
abdominal mass found on computed tomography (CT) scan. The documentation does not reflect that a 
comprehensive history was done. 
 
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 initial hospital care (procedure code 99223) rendered on August 9, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve electrical nerve stimulators. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve electrical nerve stimulators. You say that it is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says that the requested services do not meet the requirements for approval. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules state that electrical nerve stimulators may be covered if 
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 electrical nerve stimulators. Our 
reviewer says that the service is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the use of a peripheral 
nervous system for a specific nerve lesion is evidence-based therapy and is medically reasonable and 
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 electrical nerve stimulators have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
has to pre-approve electrical nerve stimulators.  
 
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: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the laboratory services provided on March 3, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the laboratory services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this claim 
was not filed timely. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that claims for services furnished on or after January 1, 2010, 
must be filed no later than one calendar year after the date of service. 
 
The record shows that a claim for the laboratory services was not filed until January 31, 2023. This means that 
more than one calendar year from the date of service had passed before a claim was filed. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the laboratory services provided on March 3, 2021.
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 had a stroke and needs rehab to regain 
strength and mobility. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the IRF services you are requesting 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. 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. 
 
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.