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 the enrollee would highly benefit from intensive 
physical and occupational therapy to safely return home to prior level of function. 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: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure codes 87150, 87481, 87641, 87653, 87798, and 
87801 provided on September 20, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure codes 87150, 87481, 87641, 87653, 87798, and 87801. You say that 
you would like the Plan to reconsider their denial of payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
services are not covered as billed. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that for tests for infectious agents, a single laboratory 
procedure shall be reported as one unit of service whether it generates one or multiple results. Multiple codes 
should only be used when multiple procedures, multiple methodologies, or multiple test kits are medically necessary and used to perform the test.  
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The documentation supports that this panel used the nucleic acid 
probe technique. There is no evidence that multiple procedures, multiple methodologies, or multiple kits were 
used in this case. As such, a single code with one unit of service should be used. Based on this information, we 
decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the testing panel have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pay for procedure codes 87150, 87481, 87641, 87653, 87798, and 87801 provided on 
September 20, 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 are requesting reconsideration of denied 
authorization. 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 
was admitted for peritonitis and perforated diverticulitis. 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: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for the post-stabilization care provided from July 3, 2023, to July 4, 2023, 
by an out-of-network provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the post-stabilization care. You say that the Plan approved the post-stabilization 
care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the enrollee was stable for transfer to an in-network 
hospital, and the post-stabilization services were not approved. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules, which say that emergency care is covered. Plans must provide or pay for 
necessary post-stabilization care. When post-stabilization care is obtained from a non-contract provider, 
approval is required.  
 
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 post-stabilization care. Our reviewer says 
that the documentation supports that the enrollee in this case was stable for transfer. Our physician reviewer 
found the documentation supports that the enrollee was stable for transfer by ambulance to an in-network 
hospital at 1243h. However, the transfer did not take place. The case file does not contain an adequate 
explanation for the transfer not occurring. 
 
 
 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 post-stabilization care have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
has to pay for the post-stabilization care provided from July 3, 2023, to July 4, 2023, by an out-of-network 
provider.  
 
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 with supporting records. 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 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 
was admitted for surgical repair of a femur fracture after a fall. Medical problems are stable. There are no 
complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. The enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies, 
including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. 
While the medical record supports a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documented 
need for intensive rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different level of care. 
There is not a reasonable expectation that this enrollee will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the 
intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: 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 meets the full criteria for an inpatient 
rehabilitation stay versus a lower level of care, has rehabilitation goals that include returning to her PLOF with 
assistance/care provided from family. 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: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure codes 87481, 87541, 87551, 87561, and 87798 
provided on August 18, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure codes 87481, 87541, 87551, 87561, and 87798. You say that you 
would like the Plan to reconsider their denial of payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
services are not covered as billed. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that for tests for infectious agents, a single laboratory 
procedure shall be reported as one unit of service whether it generates one or multiple results. Multiple codes 
should only be used when multiple procedures, multiple methodologies, or multiple test kits are medically necessary and used to perform the test.  
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The documentation supports that this panel used the nucleic acid 
probe technique. There is no evidence that multiple procedures, multiple methodologies, or multiple kits were 
used in this case. As such, a single code with one unit of service should be used. Based on this information, we 
decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the testing panel have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pay for procedure codes 87481, 87541, 87551, 87561, and 87798 provided on August 18, 
2023.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for the Guardant Reveal Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Post-Surgery Minimal 
Residual Disease Bundle (81479) provided on September 22, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the Guardant Reveal CRC Post-Surgery Minimal Residual Disease Bundle. You 
say that you would like the Plan to reconsider their denial of payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says that this test has not met Medicare criteria for coverage. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that for molecular diagnostic tests, such as the test at issue, 
the MolDX program requires these tests to be reviewed to determine whether Medicare reasonable and 
necessary requirements are met. When such review is complete, the test is assigned a unique identifier and the 
coverage status is listed in the DEXTM Diagnostics Exchange. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. This test is listed in the DEX database as covered. This determination 
was made and is specific to the test at issue. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of the Guardant Reveal CRC Post-Surgery Minimal Residual Disease Bundle have been met. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for the Guardant Reveal Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Post-Surgery 
Minimal Residual Disease Bundle (81479) provided on September 22, 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 pay for procedure codes 92537, 92540, 92547, 93880, 93922, 93931, 
95921, and 95923 provided on August 17, 2023, by an out-of-network (OON) provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure codes 92537, 92540, 92547, 93880, 93922, 93931, 95921, and 95923. 
You say that you would like the Plan to reconsider their denial of payment. The Plan denied your request. The 
Plan says the services provided were neither emergent nor urgent and prior authorization was not obtained to 
provide OON care. 
 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 requested provider in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan had network providers 
available who could have provided the items/services at issue in this appeal. The Plan did not pre-approve the 
item/service at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay for these items/services. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure codes 92537, 92540, 92547, 93880, 
93922, 93931, 95921, and 95923 provided on August 17, 2023, by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an Intracept procedure. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve an Intracept procedure. You say that the enrollee meets the criteria for this 
procedure. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says medical studies do not show that this procedure works 
better than others.  
 
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 an Intracept procedure. Our reviewer 
says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found there is no magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showing only modic changes without 
facet degenerative joint disease (DJD) or stenosis. The cause of the enrollees pain is not clear. 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of an Intracept procedure have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve an Intracept procedure.
Appeal type: Other
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 81551 provided on April 5, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 81551. You say that you would like the Plan to reconsider their 
denial of payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the claim for this molecular pathology testing 
did not include the required unique identifier. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that for molecular diagnostic tests, such as the test at issue, 
the MolDX program requires these tests to be reviewed to determine whether Medicare reasonable and necessary requirements are met. When such review is complete, the test is assigned a unique identifier and the 
coverage status is listed in the DEXTM Diagnostics Exchange. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Review of the claim does not show that the required unique identifier 
was reported. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of procedure code 81551 
have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 81551 
provided on April 5, 2023.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a ventilator (E0466). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a ventilator. 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 ventilators may be covered when they are medically 
necessary for patients who have neuromuscular disease, thoracic restrictive diseases, and chronic respiratory 
failure due to COPD. Claims for ventilators used to provide CPAP or bi-level CPAP therapy will be denied as 
not reasonable and 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 pre-approve a ventilator. Our reviewer says that the 
services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found provided records document that the home 
ventilator is being requested for use in an average volume assured pressure support (AVAPS) mode which is a 
modality that could be provided by a bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) device with AVAPS and a back-
up rate. Provided records do not document any details of a trial and failure of a BiPAP device with AVAPS and 
a back-up rate. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of a ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a ventilator (E0466).
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for lab services (87801) provided on July 7, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the lab services. You say that you would like the Plan to reconsider their denial 
of payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you billed with an incorrect place of service on the 
claim. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that, for lab services, the POS code must reflect the 
location in which the sample was taken. POS code 81 is used to describe samples taken by the laboratory 
directly. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of the lab services have not been met. Specifically, this claim was billed with the laboratory POS 
code. The records do not support that the sample was taken in a laboratory setting. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pay for lab services (87801) provided on July 7, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve electronic brachytherapy. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve electronic brachytherapy. You say that the services are necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says medical necessity has not been established. Therefore, coverage criteria 
have not been met. 
 
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 electronic brachytherapy. Our reviewer 
says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found due to limited available good quality data and lack of level I evidence, the decision to 
treat early-stage non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) with electronic brachytherapy and duration of treatment is 
still a clinical equipoise. Therefore, electronic brachytherapy is not considered medically necessary for this enrollee. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of electronic brachytherapy have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve electronic brachytherapy.