Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a home mechanical ventilator (E0466). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a home mechanical ventilator. You say that due to the probability of acute 
exacerbation, the patient requires ventilation use during the day as needed. The Plan denied your request. The 
Plan says the request for a home mechanical ventilator set in volume targeted pressure support mode that could 
be delivered by BiPAP is not covered.  
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 home mechanical ventilator. Our 
reviewer says that a home ventilator is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found this patient has 
COPD and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), and was recently hospitalized for 
exacerbations of heart failure and COPD.  Arterial blood gases (ABGs) were consistent with acute on chronic 
hypercarbic respiratory failure. Our reviewer found that there are no pulmonary function tests to assess the 
severity of the COPD. There is no diagnosis of thoracic restrictive disease or neuromuscular disease. Our 
physician reviewer found that this patient may benefit from BiPAP with average volume-assured pressure 
support (AVAPS) during sleep as an outpatient.  The records do not show this has been tried as an outpatient. 
Medicare does not cover a home ventilator when used at settings that can be provided with BiPAP. 
 
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 home mechanical ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve a home mechanical ventilator (E0466).
Appeal type: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve additional transportation. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve additional transportation. You say that the additional transportation is 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says Original Medicare is responsible for payment. 
 
Medicare rules say that Original Medicare, not the Plan, is responsible for all Medicare-covered non-hospice 
services. Medicare hospice pays for claims related to the terminal illness. The rules say that the Plan may direct 
the provider to bill Medicare directly for these services.  
 You are under the Medicare hospice benefit for the dates of service at issue in this appeal. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve additional transportation.
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 ability to regain maximum function is 
in jeopardy if denied admission to an IRF. 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: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for GIAnomics pharmacogenetic testing (81225, 81226, 81227, 
81230, 81231, 81240, 81241, 81291, 81328, 81335, 81401 and 81479) provided on February 16, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for pharmacogenetic testing. You say that this testing was necessary and appropriate 
for this enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this testing has not been demonstrated as 
effective and comprehensive in peer-reviewed literature, and therefore is not medically necessary. 
 
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 pay for pharmacogenetic testing. Our reviewer says 
that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the requested testing does not meet Medicare criteria for coverage. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of pharmacogenetic testing have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pay for GIAnomics pharmacogenetic testing (81225, 81226, 81227, 81230, 81231, 81240, 
81241, 81291, 81328, 81335, 81401 and 81479) provided on February 16, 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 this level of care to return to their 
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.  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. 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: 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 admission is medically necessary for the enrollee's 
quality of life. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's records do not show the need for a 
team of specialists. The Plan says that the services needed may be provided safely in 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 found to be medically reasonable and necessary for this enrollee. Our physician reviewer 
found the medical record overall significantly complies with the various documentation requirements for IRF 
admission. The enrollee's condition is in fact complex and fragile, and there is every reason to expect that he 
will participate in and benefit from services to include at minimum physical and occupational therapy, 
physician oversight of post-op risks and polypharmacy, and case manager coordination of any additional 
services that might be needed to make a sustainable return home and avoid preventable readmission to the 
acute hospital. Therefore, the requested inpatient rehab facility admission is approved. 
 
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 this denial. 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. 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. 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 your healthcare provider has recommended inpatient 
rehab as the most appropriate and necessary course of action to facilitate your recovery and regain your optimal 
functionality. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you don't 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 you do 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a group 3 power wheelchair and accessories (E1007, 
E1012, E1028, E2311, E2313, E2363, E2377, K0842). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a group 3 power wheelchair and accessories. 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 follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that power mobility devices are covered when specific 
criteria are met. 
 
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 group 3 power wheelchair and 
accessories. Our reviewer says that the services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found 
provided records do not document a qualifying diagnosis for a group 3 power wheelchair. Records do not 
document a mobility impairment due to a neurologic condition, myopathy or congenital skeletal condition. 
Records document diagnoses of weakness and back pain as well as renal disease. 
 
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 group 3 power wheelchair and accessories have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a group 3 power wheelchair and accessories (E1007, E1012, 
E1028, E2311, E2313, E2363, E2377, K0842).
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that admission to an IRF is medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the requirements for approval of the 
requested 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 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.  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. 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for practitioner services provided on March 15, 2023, to March 
16, 2023, billed with evaluation and management (EM) code 99232 (x2).  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the practitioner services provided. You say that the claim is billed correctly and 
should be paid. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the level of care is not supported. 
 
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, the CPT Code Manual definition of code 99232 is subsequent hospital inpatient or observation 
care, per day, for the evaluation and management of a patient, which requires a medically appropriate history 
and/or examination and moderate level of medical decision making. When using total time on the date of the 
encounter for code selection, 35 minutes must be met or exceeded. 
 We asked our physician 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 practitioner services provided. Our reviewer says that 
documentation does not support the billed code. Our reviewer found that the medical records submitted did not 
support moderate level of medical decision making or total time required of the code 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 practitioner services provided have not been met. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pay for practitioner services provided on March 15, 2023, to March 16, 2023, billed 
with evaluation and management (EM) code 99232 (x2).
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an external upper limb tremor stimulator of the 
peripheral nerves of the wrist (K1018). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the Cala Trio therapy system. You say that you are requesting an exception 
to the Plan's medical coverage policy based on the enrollee's specific needs and the proven safety and efficacy 
of technology. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says a review of the current medical literature does not 
consider this service to be standard medical treatment for the enrollee's condition. 
 
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 the Cala Trio therapy system. Our 
reviewer says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this 
case. Our physician reviewer found provided medical records in this case do not clarify all possible medical 
etiologies for the enrollee's tremor have been ruled out and that all tolerated medical therapy has been tried and 
failed. Review of the current peer-reviewed medical literature does not document that use of the Cala Trio 
therapy system has been shown in controlled studies in a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)-
approved journal to result in long term health benefits in enrollees with essential tremor. 
 
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 Cala Trio therapy system have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve an external upper limb tremor stimulator of the peripheral nerves of the wrist 
(K1018).
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says this is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for care in a SNF when the four factors 
listed in the Medicare rules section are met. Custodial care is 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 SNF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested SNF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found that there are no identifiable skilled nursing or skilled therapy service needs. These 
services are not required on a daily basis. You do not meet severity of illness or intensity of service criteria for 
an inpatient basis in a skilled nursing facility setting. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of SNF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for lab services provided on November 21, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the lab services. You say that you disagree with the denial. 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 provided on November 21, 2022.