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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for level III - surgical pathology provided on July 25, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for level III - surgical pathology. You say that this service is supported in the 
records. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that unauthorized, out-of-network care is not covered. 
 
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 provider of the item(s)/service(s) at issue in this appeal is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan did not pre-approve the item(s)/service(s) at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay 
for the item(s)/service(s). Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for level III - surgical 
pathology provided on July 25, 2023.
Appeal type: ER
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for an emergency room (ER) visit provided on 
May 29, 2023, to June 01, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for an emergency room (ER) visit. You say that the clinicals 
submitted did not support an inpatient admission. 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 an emergency room (ER) visit. 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 an emergency room 
(ER) visit provided on May 29, 2023, to June 01, 2023.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee needs the therapy that was started. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the denial of IRF care is correct.  
 
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 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for podiatry services provided on August 8, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the podiatry services. You say that you went to see this doctor due to pain in 
your foot and difficulty walking. You say this was not a routine visit and you have not seen this doctor on a 
regular basis. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services provided were routine foot care. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that routine foot care is not covered. The only exception is 
for those who have a condition that results in severe loss of circulation or areas of poor sensation in the legs or 
feet or have fungal nails.  
 
Records do not show that any of these conditions are present. The services you are asking the Plan to pay for 
are routine foot care services. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the 
podiatry services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for podiatry 
services provided on August 8, 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 you would like reconsideration based on the records 
submitted. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet all the requirements 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 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's 
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 therapy and/or 
occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. There 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. 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 you require an IRF level of care to make progress in 
your recovery process. 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 your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not require an 
acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. You do not require 
treatment by multiple therapies or an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While the medical record 
supports a need for skilled therapy, there is no documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. 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. 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: 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 won't receive the proper services at the 
nursing home setting. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the inpatient rehabilitation facility services 
are 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 the enrollee's medical problems are stable and there are no complex nursing or 
rehabilitation needs. The enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies and an intensive 
rehabilitation therapy program. 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: Transportation
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to hold you harmless for ambulance services provided on March 24, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to hold you harmless for ambulance services. You say that you believed you needed 
emergency medical attention. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the provider billed modifier GY 
and advised the Plan that the services did not meet coverage criteria. 
 
Medicare pays for ambulance services only when an emergency exists or when other means of transport would 
endanger the patients health. The Plan follows the same rules.  
 
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 hold you harmless for ambulance services. Our 
reviewer says that your symptoms met prudent layperson criteria for emergency care Our physician reviewer 
found the records show that you transported to the hospital for palpitations that were associated with dizziness. 
You were afraid of falling and so you laid in bed. You were found to have an atrial fibrillation. A delay in 
diagnosis and treatment could have led to permanent disability and even death. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of ambulance services have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to 
hold you harmless for ambulance services provided on March 24, 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: Outpatient Therapies
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve 12 additional physical therapy (PT) visits. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the therapy services. You say that the additional PT visits are medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the criteria for the additional 
PT visits.  
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for medically necessary outpatient 
therapy. 
 
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 therapy services. Our reviewer says 
that skilled services are not necessary to restore or maintain function or to prevent deterioration of the enrollee's 
condition. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has had 24 PT visits and is currently performing routine 
strengthening exercises. The enrollee is ambulating 450 feet with contact guard assistance and their lower 
extremity motor strength has not significantly changes. While the enrollee may continue to have some degree 
of gait instability and require assistance, this does not require the services of a skilled therapist.  The enrollee's 
level of strength and function has plateaued, and they can continue with a home exercise program for further 
strengthening and increasing endurance. Therefore, the 12 additional PT visits are 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 the therapy services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve 12 additional physical therapy (PT) visits.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the x-ray and computed tomography (CT) of the head, chest, 
spine, neck, back, pelvis, and knee provided on June 28, 2023, billed with codes 70486, 70496, 71045, 71275, 
72125, 72128, 72131, 72170, 73560, and 74177. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the x-ray and CT scans. You say that codes 70486, 70496, 71045, 71275, 72125, 
72128, 72131, 72170, 73560, and 74177 were billed correctly and the claim should be paid. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says this claim is a duplicate of a previously paid claim and was correctly denied. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that claims or claim lines that have been determined to be 
exact duplicates of another claim or claim line are denied. However, such denials may be appealed. 
 We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The file includes evidence that the items/services at issue were 
reimbursed by the Plan on July 12, 2023. Comparison of the two claims shows these are exact duplicates. There 
is no evidence presented to support that the billed items/services were provided twice on the same date. Based 
on this information, we decided that the Medicare rules for x-ray and CT scans have not been met. Therefore, 
we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the x-ray and computed tomography (CT) of the head, chest, 
spine, neck, back, pelvis, and knee provided on June 28, 2023, billed with codes 70486, 70496, 71045, 71275, 
72125, 72128, 72131, 72170, 73560, and 74177.
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 will clearly benefit from acute 
rehabilitation to optimize their level of functioning prior to returning home. The Plan denied your request. The 
Plan says the enrollee does not meet Medicare guidelines for services in 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 1ST REVIEW RATIONALE FOR DECISION EDITS  
 
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 pay for inpatient hospital services provided on April 21, 2022, to 
April 25, 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 
diagnosis codes A41.9 (Sepsis, unspecified organism) and R65.20 (Severe sepsis without septic shock) were 
accurately reported and billed with the appropriate DRG. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the 
medical records did not have sufficient documentation to clinically validate the diagnosis codes. Therefore, 
diagnosis code A41.9 and R65.20 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 A41.9 (Sepsis, unspecified organism) and R65.20 
(Severe sepsis without septic shock). 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 documentation 
showed evidence of a skin infection. The medical records indicated that there was an underlying 
hematoma/abscess; that was drained, and antibiotics were provided. However, there was no evidence of sepsis.  
 
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 inpatient hospital services provided on April 21, 2022, to April 25, 2022, at the Diagnosis Related Group 
(DRG) originally billed.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for a specialist office visit provided on July 05, 
2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for a specialist office visit. 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 $35 
copayment for physician/practitioner services/ specialist. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $35 copayment for a specialist office visit. This item/service falls within the 
physician/practitioner services/ specialist 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 a specialist office visit provided on July 05, 2023.
Appeal type: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for ambulance services provided on June 23, 
2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for ambulance services. 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 $290 
copayment for ambulance services. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $290 copayment for ambulance services. This item/service falls within the 
ambulance services 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 ambulance services 
provided on June 23, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for inpatient mental health care provided on 
December 27, 2021, to December 29, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for inpatient mental health 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 $415 
copayment for inpatient mental health care. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $415 copayment for inpatient mental health care. This item/service falls within 
the inpatient mental health 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. The total amount you are being asked is $830 ($415 x 2days = $830). Therefore, 
we decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for inpatient mental health care provided on 
December 27, 2021, to December 29, 2021.