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

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for the acute inpatient hospital care provided from September 7, 2023, 
through September 12, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for these services. You say that you are requesting a reconsideration of the Plan's 
denial for payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the acute inpatient hospital care provided 
was not medically necessary.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that inpatient hospital care is covered when the doctor 
expects the patient to need hospital care that crosses at least two midnights. In rare and unusual cases, 
consideration may be given to inpatient hospital care when the hospital stay does not cross two midnights or 
more. 
 
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 
documentation supports that the criteria for inpatient payment are met in this case. Our physician reviewer 
found that the enrollee was evaluated in the emergency department (ED) and admitted with a diagnosis of 
vertigo. She was hemodynamically stable and the diagnostic tests provided did not reveal an acute cranial 
pathology. She was treated and her symptoms improved. She was discharged home when considered medically 
stable. The review has determined that the record showed that at the time of the inpatient admission it was 
reasonable for the admitting physician to expect that the enrollees necessary hospital care (including earlier 
ED and/or observation care) would span two midnights with supporting documentation of the enrollees history 
and comorbidities, signs and symptoms, current medical needs, and risk of an adverse event. 
 
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 been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for 
the acute inpatient hospital care provided from September 7, 2023, through September 12, 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve genicular nerve block. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve genicular nerve block. You say that this is affecting your livelihood and 
physical health. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this is not considered to be standard medical 
treatment for your condition. In addition, the records show your pain has improved since your cortisone 
injection. 
 
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 genicular nerve block. Our reviewer 
says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found genicular nerve blocks and genicular nerve ablation are considered investigational 
and not medically necessary for the treatment of chronic knee pain. The review has determined that the requested genicular nerve blocks are not 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 genicular nerve block have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve genicular nerve block.
Appeal type: ER
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for emergency care provided on October 18, 
2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for emergency care. You say that you disagree with the 
copayment. 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 $50 
copayment for emergency care. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $50 copayment for emergency care. This item/service falls within the emergency 
care 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 emergency care provided on 
October 18, 2023.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 80048 billed for date of service October 17, 
2023.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 80048. You say that the claim should be paid. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says payment for code 80048 is bundled into payment for code 80069. 
 
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, we have confirmed that code 80048 is a column two code to column one code 80069 with a modifier indicator of 0. The column two code is 
therefore not payable. Based on the claim submitted, Medicare billing criteria have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 80048 billed for date of service October 17, 
2023.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a walker with seat attachment (E0143, E0156) provided on 
May 18, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the walker with seat attachment. You say that the walker was medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says coverage criteria was not met. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that a walker is covered when a beneficiary has a mobility 
limitation that significantly impairs his/her ability to participate in one or more mobility-related activities of 
daily living (MRADL) in the home.  
 
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 walker with seat attachment. Our 
reviewer says that the walker was not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the record does not 
support the enrollee requires the walker to complete her self-care in the home.  
 
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 walker with seat attachment have not been met. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pay for a walker with seat attachment (E0143, E0156) provided on May 18, 2023.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that admission is medically necessary for your falling and 
increased weakness. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says your condition does not meet all the 
requirements for inpatient rehabilitation admission.  
 
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. The medical records 
support 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. It 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: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that admission to an LTACH is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says admission to an LTACH does not meet criteria. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that LTACH services are covered if they are medically 
necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the LTACH services. Our reviewer says 
that the requested LTACH care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the review has determined that the enrollee does not require services at the LTACH 
that are not available at the acute care hospital where she is currently receiving care. There are no services 
available at the LTACH that the enrollee requires that are not available at the health care setting being offered 
by the health plan. The requested LTACH services are not medically necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for 
the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee and able to be furnished safely and effectively only on an inpatient 
basis. 
 
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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve ultrasound guided, image-guided radiation therapy (US-
IGRT) (77401, G6001). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve US-IGRT. You say that the enrollee has skin cancer on her leg and this 
treatment is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there is not enough evidence that 
this type of radiation therapy guidance is needed or effective for the enrollee's skin cancer. Therefore, it not 
considered standard of care. 
 
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 US-IGRT. Our reviewer says that the 
requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found usually, image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) is used when critical structures are abutting or 
in close proximity to the target that is being treated to high doses. This situation does not apply to this enrollee 
for which the target lesion can be seen on the skin to assist in daily set up. When treating skin cancers, there is 
generally not a need for IGRT unless deep structures are being treated. Certainly, using ultrasound on a daily 
basis is not unreasonable to offer but not necessary. The device itself is Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 
approved for use with ultrasound though that in and of itself does not mean that daily imaging is necessary but 
simply that the device was designed to incorporate this functionality. Billing for daily IGRT would not be 
furnished in accordance with accepted standards of medical practice. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of US-IGRT have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve ultrasound guided, image-guided radiation therapy (US-IGRT) (77401, G6001).
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 need to go to rehabilitation to help you walk and 
get out of bed again. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you must complete your full course of acute 
hospital treatment in the current hospital.  
 
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. The medical records 
support 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. It 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: 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 in need of inpatient rehabilitation facility 
admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says your condition does not meet all the requirements for 
inpatient rehabilitation admission. The Plan says services may be provided at a lower level of care.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is 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. The medical records 
support 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. It 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: 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 expected to make reasonable progress 
from and actively participate in an intensive rehabilitation program and requires medical/physician oversight 
for ongoing clinical conditions and active co- morbidities. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
enrollee's condition does not meet all the requirements for inpatient rehabilitation admission. The Plan says 
services may be provided at a lower level of care.  
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is 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 medical 
records support 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. It 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 the medical records provided support the need for 
the requested IRF admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the records we received do not show 
that the enrollee meets criteria for admission to the 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 is medically stable and does not need a physical medicine and 
rehabilitation physicians supervision 3 times a week in an IRF. At the current functional level, the enrollee 
needs physical therapy and occupational therapy. The enrollee does not need intensive therapies consisting of 
at least 3 hours of therapy per day at least 5 days per week with multidisciplinary approach in an IRF. The 
document does not support necessity for admission to an IRF. The complexity of the enrollees medical, 
rehabilitation, and nursing needs (combined complexity) does not require acute hospital inpatient rehabilitation 
stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitative care. There is no medical complexity. 
The enrollees rehabilitation needs can be safely provided in a low intensity alternate setting such as in an 
skilled nursing facility.  
 
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 LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that a skilled nursing facility (SNF) is not the 
appropriate level of care at this time due to the complexity of the enrollee's care needs. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says once the enrollee is ready for discharge, they can reasonably receive continued care 
needs in another setting, such as an inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) or Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF). 
 
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 this case pertains to an enrollee with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), 
heart failure, sleep apnea, and atrial fibrillation who had a COPD exacerbation requiring intubation and then extubation to bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP). They developed tracheomalacia requiring reintubation 
and then tracheostomy tube placement. They are off the vent and receiving 8 L/min of 35% FiO2. They have a 
nasogastric (NG) tube in place. The do not require ventilator weaning, do not have complex wound care needs, 
and do not have stable nutrition access. 
 
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 LTACH services.