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 sepsis and was discharged home on July 13, 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 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 you 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 your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not require an 
acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. You were admitted for 
surgical repair of a tibial plateau fracture. Medical problems are stable. There are no complex nursing or 
rehabilitation needs.  
 
You do not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, 
and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While the medical record supports a need for physical and/or 
occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. Medically necessary 
care can be provided in a different level of care. 
 
There is not a reasonable expectation that you will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive 
rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for the inpatient hospital services provided on August 27, 2022, to August 
31, 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 that the billed DRG is not supported. 
 
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 diagnosis code N17.0. 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 the use of diagnosis code N17.0 is supported by the records provided. Our physician 
reviewer found that the enrollee has a clear diagnosis of acute kidney injury from acute tubular necrosis 
documented, and thus meets criteria for diagnosis code N17.0. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided the 
medical records do substantiate the DRG as billed. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for the 
inpatient hospital services provided on August 27, 2022, to August 31, 2022, at the Diagnosis Related Group 
(DRG) originally billed.  
 
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: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for ambulance services provided on March 24, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for ambulance services. You say that you have billed the services at issue correctly. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says rules for payment have not been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that the ICD-10-CM has a coding convention that 
requires the underlying condition be sequenced first, if applicable, followed by the manifestation. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of ambulance services have not been met. Specifically, this claim has been billed with I70.92 as the 
primary diagnosis code. I70.92 has a "Code First" note, meaning that the underlying condition must be sequenced first on the claim. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for ambulance services 
provided on March 24, 2023.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 88305 billed for date of service January 18, 
2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the billed services. You say that the claim was coded correctly. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the diagnosis code pair should not be reported together. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate code. 
 We find that CPT code 88305 was billed with diagnosis codes D12.4 and K63.5. There is an excludes1 note on 
diagnosis code group D12 that excludes diagnosis code K63.5. These codes should never be used at the same 
time. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the billed services have not 
been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 88305 billed for date of 
service January 18, 2023.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a VIA Disc NP allograft. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve these services. You say that you disagree with the denial. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the services are not medically 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 these services. Our reviewer says that 
the services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found there is limited published, large-scale, 
long-term peer-reviewed literature that shows the VIA Disc NP allograft as an effective and/or safe treatment 
for the enrollee's pathology. Further studies are needed to demonstrate the procedure has beneficial outcomes 
compared with conventional treatment. There is no compelling rationale presented or extenuating 
circumstances noted to support the medical necessity of this request as an exception. Therefore, the VIA Disc NP allograft 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 these services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a VIA Disc NP allograft.
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 an expedited appeal of this 
decision and have provided a clinical summary and clinical documentation to support this request. 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. 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: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the laboratory test (87631) provided on October 7, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the laboratory test. You say that this test was necessary and is supported in the 
medical record. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the claim for this molecular pathology testing did 
not include the required unique identifier. 
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that for molecular diagnostic tests, such as the test at issue, 
the MolDX program requires these tests to be reviewed to determine whether Medicare reasonable and 
necessary requirements are met. When such review is complete, the test is assigned a unique identifier and the 
coverage status is listed in the DEXTM Diagnostics Exchange. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Review of the claim does not show that the required unique identifier 
was reported. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the laboratory test 
have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the laboratory test (87631) 
provided on October 7, 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 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 
has a stroke in April 2023 and is living at home with weakness. 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: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the laboratory test (87631) provided on December 12, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the laboratory test. You say that this test was medically necessary and was 
reported correctly. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the claim for this molecular pathology testing 
did not include the required unique identifier. 
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that for molecular diagnostic tests, such as the test at issue, 
the MolDX program requires these tests to be reviewed to determine whether Medicare reasonable and 
necessary requirements are met. When such review is complete, the test is assigned a unique identifier and the 
coverage status is listed in the DEXTM Diagnostics Exchange. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Review of the claim does not show that the required unique identifier 
was reported. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the laboratory test 
have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the laboratory test (87631) 
provided on December 12, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an emergency department visit provided on July 21, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the emergency department visit. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
Plan has contacted the provider to obtain the primary explanation of benefits (EOB) as they did not submit with 
the appeal and after multiple outreaches to provider the Plan did not receive any primary EOB. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules state that Medicare plans are considered secondary insurers 
when an enrollee has another type of insurance. This means that the Plan is not responsible for paying for services until the claim for those services has gone to the primary insurer. However, plans are still required to 
coordinate their benefits with the primary insurers. Plans can coordinate their benefits with the primary insurers 
in three ways. First, the Plan can send the bill directly to the primary insurer for payment. Second, the Plan can 
direct the provider to send the bill to the primary insurer. Third, the Plan can pay for the services and submit a 
bill for reimbursement to the primary insurer. 
 
The Plan has met its obligation with regards to coordination of benefits. Specifically, the Plan has made 
multiple outreaches to provider and the Plan did not receive the primary EOB. As the secondary insurer, the 
Plan cannot be held responsible for the emergency department visit until the primary insurer has denied the 
claim for these services. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an emergency department 
visit provided on July 21, 2022.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for physical therapy provided on September 15, 2022, to 
September 29, 2022, by an OON provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for physical therapy. You say that you are appealing the claim payment denial. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services were provided out-of-network and were not approved in 
advanced. 
 
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 physical therapy provided on September 15, 2022, 
to September 29, 2022, by an OON provider.
Appeal type: Outpatient Mental Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the outpatient behavioral health services rendered on April 
28, 2022.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the outpatient behavioral health services. You say that the service should be 
covered. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this provider type is not eligible in the Medicare 
program. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare payment cannot be made to a provider that is 
not enrolled in the Medicare program. 
 Review of the file and Medicare records indicates that the provider at issue is not enrolled in the Medicare 
program. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the outpatient behavioral health services 
rendered on April 28, 2022.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve the insertion of an iris prosthesis. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve an iris prosthesis. You say that this prostatic is medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says that this work is not medically necessary. 
 
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 pre-approve an iris prosthesis. Our reviewer says 
that the requested items/services are considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found the enrollee has chronic iridocyclitis and an iris defect in left eye. The enrollee also has 
complaints of light sensitivity affecting daily living. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of an iris prosthesis have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-
approve the insertion of an iris prosthesis.  
 
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: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve additional routine transportation. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve additional routine transportation. You say that the additional transportation 
is necessary.  The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the benefit has been exhausted. Therefore, coverage 
criteria have not been met. 
 Medicare does not cover transport in a vehicle that is not an ambulance. However, the Plan offers a 
transportation benefit that exceeds Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plans coverage rules apply in this 
case. The Plan covers a maximum of 60 one-way trips per year.  
 
We looked at your request, the records in the case file, and the rules. Based on this information, we decided 
that you have exhausted the Plan maximum benefit for coverage of routine transportation. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve additional routine transportation.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for laboratory services (85007, 36415, 80048, 80076, 85025 and 
85027) provided on January 17, 2023, by an out-of-network (OON) provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for out-of-network laboratory services. You say that these services were necessary, 
and the enrollee has established care with this provider and would like to receive treatment going forward. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says these services were not performed or referred by a network provider. 
Out-of-network services are only covered in certain limited circumstances, which have not been met in this 
case. 
 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 laboratory services (85007, 36415, 80048, 80076, 
85025 and 85027) provided on January 17, 2023, by an out-of-network (OON) provider.