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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that IRF care is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the coverage criteria has not been met.  
 
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 have complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. 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 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 enrollee is participating in physical therapy, 
occupational therapy, and speech therapy and has been making daily progress. You say the enrollee now needs 
IRF care to continue therapy services to achieve an independent level of mobility and activities of daily living 
function. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee dose not meet the 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 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.  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. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different 
level of care. 
 
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.  
 
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 this course of treatment would be greatly beneficial 
for you to begin walking again and become more independent. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an 
IRF admission 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 the complexity of your nursing, medical, and rehabilitation needs does not require an 
acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. 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 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 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 continued acute inpatient mental health admission. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve continued acute inpatient mental health admission. You say that the services 
are necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says based on the documentation provided, coverage 
criteria has not been met. 
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that inpatient psychiatric services may be covered if the 
patient requires active treatment.  
 
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 continued acute inpatient mental health 
admission. Our reviewer says that the services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found 
Based upon review the records provided, this patient does not meet the criteria for treatment in an acute 
inpatient mental health treatment beyond the date in question of September 6, 2023 forward and could have 
been treated in a lesser restrictive setting as he was not showing any suicidal or homicidal ideation, auditory or 
visual hallucinations, delusions and was not showing any behaviors or aggression being cooperative and 
compliant while not showing any acute threats to safety. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of continued acute inpatient mental health admission have not been met. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve continued acute inpatient mental health 
admission.
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 has been experiencing weakness and 
decreased endurance, which is greatly impacting their ability to mobilize and perform their activities of daily 
living. 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 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. 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. 
Medically necessary care can be provided in a different level of care. 
 
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.  
 
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: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the radiology services coded as 74230, 74240, 72040, 70100, 
and 70310 performed on March 21, 2023.  
You asked the Plan to pay for the radiology services. You say that the radiology services should be covered as 
billed because they are supported in the documentation and were medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the radiology services described by codes 74240 and 74230 are not covered benefits 
because they are listed in the Exclusions from Coverage as Portable X-Ray Services section of the Medicare 
Benefit Policy Manual. The radiology services coded as 72040, 70100, and 70310 were billed with an 
inappropriate place of service.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that radiology services performed in the mobile 
setting are not eligible for reimbursement if they are listed in the Exclusions from Coverage as Portable X-Ray 
Services section of the Medicare Benefit Policy Manual. Medicare rules also state that claims must be billed 
with the appropriate POS. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Documentation provided shows codes 74240 and 72430 were 
performed in a mobile unit setting with the use of fluoroscopy. Therefore, they are not covered and are 
excluded under the portable x-ray provision. Codes 72040, 70100, and 70310 were billed with POS 11, 
indicating an office setting. However, documentation shows the radiology services were performed in a mobile 
setting. There is no evidence the services were provided in an office setting. Based on this information, we 
decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the radiology services have not been met. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan does not have to pay for the radiology services coded as 74230, 74240, 72040, 70100, and 70310 
performed on March 21, 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's needs cannot be adequately met at a 
lower level of care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an IRF admission 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 enrollees 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 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 would benefit from IRF care.  The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's condition does not meet the criteria for an IRF 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 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. 
 
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: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Kevzara. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Kevzara. You say that the requested medication is medically necessary for 
the enrollee's health and well-being. You say that the medical records provided support this medical necessity.  
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the medication is not covered as a medical benefit under the Plan. 
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare Part B generally does not pay for self-
administered drugs. The self-administered drugs requested here are not among the types which are covered by 
Medicare Part B. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Kevzara.  
 
Benefits for Kevzara may be available under Medicare Part D. Contact the Plan that administers Part D benefits 
for further information concerning any benefits and appeal rights.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for lab services (80076, 82550, 82565, 83516, 84520, 85025, 
85651, 86038, 86140, 86160, 86225, 86235, 86255, 86430) provided on February 23, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the lab services. You say that this service was medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the documentation does not support the billed service. 
 
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 codes 80076, 82550, 82565, 83516, 84520, 85025, 85651, 86038, 86140, 86160, 86225, 
86235, 86255, & 86430 are not supported in the medical record. Specifically, lab results were not provided for 
the testing billed. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the lab services 
have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for lab services (80076, 82550, 82565, 83516, 84520, 85025, 85651, 86038, 86140, 86160, 86225, 86235, 86255, 86430) provided on February 
23, 2023.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 70450 billed for date of service April 21, 
2023. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 70450. You say that this should be paid for. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says payment for code 70450 is bundled into payment for code 70496. 
 
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 70450 
is a column II code to column I code 70496. This claim has not been billed with an appropriate modifier to 
bypass the edit. 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 70450 billed for date of service April 21, 2023.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for validity testing billed with code 83789 for date(s) of service 
March 23, 2023.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for code 83789. You say that this service is medically necessary and should be paid. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says code 83789 is not separately payable. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers performing validity testing on urine 
specimens utilized for drug testing should not separately bill the validity testing. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of code 83789 have not been met. Specifically, we find that the testing described by code 83789 is not 
separately payable. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for validity testing billed with 
code 83789 for date(s) of service March 23, 2023.
Appeal type: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the paramedic intercept (A0432) provided on April 21, 2022. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for the ambulance service. You say that you are unable to pay for this charge. You 
also say that the medical staff in the ambulance was there trying to keep the enrollee alive on the way to the 
hospital. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says advanced life support services (ALS) delivered by 
paramedics that operate separately from the agency that provides the ambulance transport are not covered. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for advanced life support (ALS), in 
accordance with state and local laws by an emergency medical technician (EMT) intermediate or EMT-
Paramedic only in certain circumstances. Medicare allows ALS paramedic intercept services only when the 
services are furnished under a contract with a qualified basic life support (BLS), the provision of medically 
necessary supplies and services, with a volunteer ambulance company. In addition, State law must not allow 
the volunteer ambulance company to bill for the transport or BLS services.  
 
The Plan has confirmed that the BLS provider does not have a contract with the volunteer ambulance company 
that provided the transport services. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the paramedic 
intercept (A0432) provided on April 21, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for medical services provided from April 6, 2023, to April 8, 
2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the medical services. You say that you have provided medical records supporting 
the services provided. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you billed the wrong Place of Service code 
on the claim. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must bill the appropriate POS code for 
services.  POS code 21 indicates that the services were performed in an inpatient hospital setting. POS code 22 
indicates that the services were performed in an outpatient hospital setting. 
 
In this case, you billed the claim for these services with POS code 21.  However, the documentation shows that 
the patient was in an observation status.  Observation is an outpatient status, so POS code 22 should have been 
used on the claim instead.  
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of the medical services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay 
for medical services provided from April 6, 2023, to April 8, 2023.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for skilled nursing facility (SNF) care provided on October 1, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for SNF care. You say that this was billed correctly  The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says the billed date of service is not supported. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that the provider, supplier, or beneficiary, as 
appropriate, must furnish to the intermediary or carrier sufficient information to determine whether payment is 
due and the amount of payment. 
 We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that there is insufficient 
information in the record to determine if Medicare rules for coverage of SNF care have been met. The 
submitted records do not include documentation of services provided on the billed date of service. Therefore, 
we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for skilled nursing facility (SNF) care provided on October 1, 
2022.
Appeal type: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for ambulance services provided on March 16, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the ambulance services. You say that you have provided documentation from the 
ambulance trip, so this claim should be processed for payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 
two of the billed diagnosis codes cannot be reported together. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that providers must comply with ICD-10-CM coding 
guidelines. One such guideline indicates that certain diagnosis codes have an Excludes1 note which lists other diagnosis codes with which they cannot be reported.  
 
In this case, we have confirmed that R54 has an Excludes1 note in relation to R53.1. This means that the two 
diagnosis codes cannot be reported together. Based on this information, we decided that the Medicare billing 
rules for the ambulance services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay 
for ambulance services provided on March 16, 2023.