Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Guardant Reveal diagnostic testing. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Guardant Reveal diagnostic testing. You say that this testing should be 
covered. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this test has not passed the MolDx Technical Assessment 
(TA) confirming that it meets the Medicare reasonable and necessary criteria, nor has this test received Food & 
Drug Administration (FDA) approval or clearance as a companion in vitro diagnostic for use in your cancer.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that molecular diagnostic laboratory tests such as the 
Guardant Reveal are subject to the MolDX application, assessment, and approval process. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. We find that the Guardant Reveal test has not been approved for 
coverage based on information in the DEX Diagnostic Exchange. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of Guardant Reveal diagnostic testing have not been met. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Guardant Reveal diagnostic testing.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you lack strength and still need assistance with 
standing and walking. You also say IRF services are necessary because when you get home you will not be 
able to perform your activities of daily living without assistance. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 
admission to an IRF 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 that 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 do not 
require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an 
intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While you may have a need for physical therapy and/or occupational 
therapy, there is no documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be 
provided in a different level of care. 
 
There is not a reasonable expectation that 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 an IRF admission and services.
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 this is medically necessary for the enrollee. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says that the enrollee's needs can be met at a lower level of care. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is found to be medically reasonable and necessary for this enrollee. Our physician reviewer 
found the medical record overall complies with the various documentation requirements for IRF admission 
(e.g., as best summarized by the doctor and occupational therapy note on August 9, 2023). The reviewer found 
that the enrollees condition is in fact complex and fragile, as evidenced by the frequent readmissions to acute 
hospital following premature transfer to lower levels of care. The reviewer found that it is expected that the 
enrollee will participate in and benefit from services to include at minimum physical therapy (PT), 
occupational therapy (OT), physician oversight of orthopedic injuries, pain medication, as well as 
cardiovascular comorbidities, and case manager coordination of whatever additional services the enrollee might 
need in order to make a sustain return home and avoid further preventable readmissions to the acute hospital. 
Therefore, the reviewer found that the requested inpatient rehab facility admission 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 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: 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 a radial head fracture and surgical repair of a hip 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Cala transcutaneous afferent patterned stimulation 
(TAPS) device (K1018, K1019). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the Cala TAPS device. You say that Cala Trio was prescribed for the 
enrollee to provide necessary relief from symptoms and interrupt the enrollee's declining quality of life. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says this device is considered experimental and investigational. Neither 
Medicare nor the Plan covers this service.  
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that items and services that are not medically 
necessary are not covered.  
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Medical studies haven't proven this service/item is helpful for the 
treatment of your health problem. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of 
the Cala TAPS device have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the 
Cala transcutaneous afferent patterned stimulation (TAPS) device (K1018, K1019).
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the anesthesia services provided on August 10, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. 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 the POS code to be used by the physician or 
other supplier will be assigned as the same setting in which the beneficiary received the face-to-face service. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of the services have not been met. Specifically, this claim was billed with the outpatient hospital POS 
code. The records do not support that the services were provided in an outpatient hospital setting, but rather an ambulatory surgical center. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the anesthesia services 
provided on August 10, 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 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 do 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. 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 inpatient rehabilitation facility. 
You continue to have a need for skilled therapy with ongoing safety concerns and a potential for functional 
improvement however, the documentation doesnt 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 your 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: Testing
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the services provided on November 21, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. 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 the POS code to be used by the physician or 
other supplier will be assigned as the same setting in which the beneficiary received the face-to-face service. 
The two exceptions are for enrollees who are registered hospital inpatients or outpatients, in which case, the 
inpatient or outpatient hospital POS code would be reported regardless of where the face-to-face service takes 
place. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of the services have not been met. Specifically, this claim was billed with the mobile unit POS code. The records show that the services were provided in an inpatient setting, which means that an inpatient POS 
code should be used. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the services provided on 
November 21, 2022.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for lab services provided on February 16, 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 February 16, 2023.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a pneumatic compression device (E0652). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a pneumatic compression device . You say that you need this to control your 
condition. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the record does not show that you have had 4 weeks of 
regular, daily, multiple-hour usage of a basic pneumatic compression pump. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules state that a PCD coded as E0652 is covered for the treatment of 
lymphedema extending onto the chest, trunk and/or abdomen after a four-week trial of conservative therapy 
demonstrating failed response to treatment with an E0650 or E0651. At least four weeks of regular, daily, 
multiple-hour home usage of the E0650 or E0651 is required. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of the PCD have not been met. Specifically, the record does not show that the enrollee had at least 
four weeks of regular, daily, multiple-hour home usage of the E0650 or E0651 after careful, in-person fitting, 
training and supervision by a technician who is skilled in and who regularly and successfully uses the appliance 
provided.  Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a pneumatic compression device 
(E0652).
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a repeat epidural steroid injection (ESI). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the repeat ESI. You say that you feel it will help improve your overall well-
being. You also say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee 
has not had a 50% reduction in pain for 12 weeks following the last injection. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that a repeat ESI may be considered medically reasonable 
and necessary when the medical record documents that the first injection provided at least 50% of sustained 
improvement in pain relief for three months. 
 
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 repeat ESI. Our reviewer says that 
the request for a repeat ESI is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the provided 
documentation does not indicate that the enrollee had 50% pain relief for at least three months. Therefore, the 
reviewer found that the request for a repeat ESI is not medically reasonable or necessary. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the repeat ESI have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a repeat epidural steroid injection (ESI).
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that admission to a SNF is medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says admission to a SNF does not meet criteria. 
 
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 the enrollee has stabilized medically and is ready for discharge from the hospital. The 
enrollee does not require skilled nursing and/or skilled therapy services on a daily basis. Although further 
rehabilitation services would be appropriate to improve function, as a practical matter, the intermittent skilled 
services can be provided at a lower level of care than a skilled nursing facility. The enrollee does not have any 
parental medication; complex wound care or nutrition given via a feeding tube. She is medically stable without 
any acute exacerbations of chronic medical problems. Her physical function is at or near her baseline. 
Admission to a SNF for inpatient skilled rehab services is not 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 SNF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care.
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Leqvio. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve Leqvio. You say that this drug is necessary for the enrollee's condition. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says  the enrollee has not tried and failed the preferred drug, Praluent. 
 
Medicare covers Part B medications when they are reasonable and necessary but allows health plans to 
implement step therapy criteria. The Plan's contract indicates that it has implemented such criteria for certain 
Part B medications. 
 
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 Leqvio. Our reviewer says that the step 
therapy criteria have not been met. Our physician reviewer found the provided documentation does not indicate 
that the enrollee has tried and failed the preferred drug, Praluent. The reviewer also found that there is no 
documentation provided indicating that the Plan's required drug would likely be less effective and/or likely 
have adverse effects for the enrollee. Therefore, the reviewer found that the step therapy criteria have not been 
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 Leqvio have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pre-approve Leqvio.
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 to an IRF is medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says admission to an IRF does not meet criteria. 
 
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 rehabilitation hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. 
The enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational 
therapy, at an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. 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. The enrollee continues to have a need for skilled therapy with ongoing safety concerns and a potential for 
functional improvement however, the documentation does not support that she would meet criteria for 
admission to an acute IRF. There is no indication that the enrollee 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 her functional status. The enrollee 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code E0143-NU billed for date of service 
December 13, 2022. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for the billed service. You say that the item was purchased by the enrollee. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says an appropriate modifier was not billed. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate CPT code. 
 
We find that CPT code E0143-NU was not billed with a modifier that shows the requirements for coverage 
have been met. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage have not been met. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code E0143-NU billed for date of 
service December 13, 2022.