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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the acute inpatient hospital care provided January 7, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for acute inpatient hospital care. You say that an inpatient admission was medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the care needed could have been provided under 
observation. 
 
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 acute inpatient hospital care. Our reviewer 
says that the documentation does not support that the criteria for inpatient payment are met in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found based on the stable presentation and uncomplicated treatment plan for this enrollee, it 
was not expected that the patient would require hospital services that would likely cross 2 midnights. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of acute inpatient hospital care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pay for the acute inpatient hospital care provided January 7, 2023.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the inpatient hospital services provided on May 10, 2022, to 
May 13, 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. You say that the 
enrollee meets the criteria for sepsis. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there is insufficient evidence 
to support the diagnosis. 
 
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 with diagnosis code A41.9, defined as sepsis, unspecified 
organism. 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 physician reviewer found that the enrollee presented to the hospital with worsening 
ulceration and drainage and pain. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed, which was consistent 
with osteomyelitis. However, the orthopedic surgeon documented that it was unlikely the enrollee had 
osteomyelitis. The enrollee had no fever or white blood cell count elevation. The enrollee does not meet 
clinical criteria for sepsis per medical documentation, given lack of clear evidence of infection, fever, elevated 
white blood cell count, or other signs of systemic inflammatory response syndrome. Therefore, the 
documentation does not support a diagnosis code of A41.9.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided the 
medical records do not substantiate the DRG as billed. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay 
for the inpatient hospital services provided on May 10, 2022, to May 13, 2022, at the Diagnosis Related Group 
(DRG) originally billed.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the definitive urine drug testing (UDT) for 22 or more drug 
classes (G0483) provided on February 22, 2023.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the definitive UDT for 22 or more drug classes. You say that the enrollee's 
treating physician determined that this testing was medically necessary.  The Plan denied your request. The 
Plan says ordering a multi-class panel of definitive (confirmation) urine drug tests that are not used in clinical 
management, exceeds the needs of the member. Under Medicare rules, the number of definitive urine drug 
classes requested are not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that this testing is 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 pay for the definitive UDT for 22 or more drug 
classes. Our reviewer says that the service is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that there 
was no indication for performing definitive urine toxicology screening. There were no screening test results 
which are positive or inconsistent with prescription medications, dosing schedules, or history and expected 
results. The testing was not 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 the definitive UDT for 22 or more drug classes have not been met. Therefore, 
we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the definitive urine drug testing (UDT) for 22 or more drug 
classes (G0483) provided on February 22, 2023.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health services billed with Patient-Driven 
Grouping Model (PDGM) HIPPS code 3IC31 for date of service January 13, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the home health services as billed. You say that you disagree with the Plan's 
denial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there is a more appropriate PDGM for the services 
provided. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
 
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 home health services as billed. Our 
reviewer says that the documentation does not support the PDGM billed. Our reviewer found the enrollee 
required contact guard to moderate assistance with a wheeled walker for ambulation, transfers, and toileting. 
The documentation does not support 3IC31 as billed. 
 
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 home health services as billed have not been met. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health services billed with Patient-Driven Grouping Model 
(PDGM) HIPPS code 3IC31 for date of service January 13, 2022.
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 it is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says that 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 found to be medically reasonable and necessary for this enrollee.  
 
Our physician reviewer found this beneficiarys condition is in fact complex and fragile, and there is every 
reason to expect that the enrollee will participate in and benefit from services to include, at minimum to include 
physical therapy, occupational therapy, physician supervision of cardiopulmonary status, and case worker 
coordination of any additional home services that might be needed. 
 
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 you are appealing the denial. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says that the enrollee does not meet the Medicare 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 that the complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical, and rehabilitation needs does 
not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The 
enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational 
therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. 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 IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you need IRF services in order to get stronger and 
return home independent. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request 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 your medical problems are stable and there are no complex nursing or 
rehabilitation needs. 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 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 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 facial cellulitis. 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 have a 
recent lumbar compression fracture and is living at home receiving conservative care. 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: 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 physical therapy on an inpatient level while 
also receiving dialysis. 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 your 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 the services are medically necessary to restore the 
enrollee's functional status. 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: 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 still in need of rehabilitation for their 
complex medical needs and the care is unable to be met in a lower level of care. 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 continues to have a need for skilled therapy with ongoing safety 
concerns and a potential for functional improvement. However, the documentation doesnt support that they 
would meet criteria for admission to an acute inpatient rehabilitation facility. 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 the pneumatic compression device provided on December 6, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the billed services. You say that this device was used during the enrollee's 
surgery. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says equipment used in a facility for a procedure is not 
separately payable. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules state that for equipment to be covered, it must be appropriate 
and needed for use inside the home.  
 
 
 The file shows that the items at issue were provided in an ambulatory surgical center. Although this item may 
be helpful, neither Medicare nor the Plan covers equipment for use outside the home. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan does not have to pay for the pneumatic compression device provided on December 6, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to issue reimbursement for the acupuncture treatments (97810, 97811) 
provided from July 18, 2022, through September 19, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to issue reimbursement 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 you have 
exhausted the allowable benefit for these services.   
 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that acupuncture services are not covered by Medicare. 
However, for services provided on or after January 21, 2020, Medicare offers limited coverage for acupuncture 
treatments for CLBP meeting certain requirements, up to 12 sessions per 90-day period, and no more than 20 
sessions per year. However, your Plan offers coverage beyond the Medicare acupuncture benefit. As such, the 
Plans rules apply in this case.  
 
We looked at the case file and the Plans rules. Based on this information, we decided that the Plans rules for 
coverage of the acupuncture services have not been met. Specifically, the Plans contract provides 
supplemental coverage for six routine acupuncture visits for other conditions beyond chronic low back pain. 
The Plan previously issued payment for six routine acupuncture visits provided on January 3, 2022, January 24, 
2022, February 21, 2022, March 14, 2022, April 4, 2022, and June 27, 2022. Therefore, you have exhausted the 
allowable benefit for the acupuncture services provided in this case. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to issue reimbursement for the acupuncture treatments (97810, 97811) provided from July 18, 2022, 
through September 19, 2022.