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 you would benefit from this care. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says your 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 your medical problems are stable and there are no complex nursing or rehabilitation 
needs. While the medical record supports a need for physical or occupational therapy, there is no documented 
need for intensive rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different level of care.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a screening mammogram, and screening digital breast 
tomosynthesis provided on April 07, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for a screening mammogram, and screening digital breast tomosynthesis. You say 
that this 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 a screening 
mammogram, and screening digital breast tomosynthesis provided on April 07, 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 enrollee had cardiac arrest and the hospital where 
enrollee is currently residing in advised that rehab at the same facility will be needed for the enrollee to 
continue his path to recovery. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this 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 patient's nursing, medical and rehabilitation can be provided in 
a lower level of care and does not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to 
rehabilitation care. The patient requires treatment by multiple therapies, including physical therapy and 
occupational therapy, but this can be provided in a lower level of care. There is documentation that there is a 
reasonable expectation that this patient will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive 
rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF, but the services required can be provided 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 pay for inpatient hospital services provided on May 9, 2022, to May 
20, 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 A41.51 
and N17.0 are supported in the documentation, therefore the claim should be paid at the DRG originally billed. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says A41.51 and N17.0 are not supported in the documentation. 
 
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 principal diagnosis code A41.51, defined as sepsis 
due to Escherichia coli and secondary diagnosis code N17.0, defined as acute kidney failure with tubular 
necrosis. 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 reviewer says that principal diagnosis A41.51 and secondary diagnosis N17.0 are 
not supported in the documentation. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee is an 80-year-old who was 
treated in the hospital with tremors. Documentation revealed high blood pressure, creatinine of 1.6, blood urea 
nitrogen (BUN) of 27, leukocytosis, and positive urinalysis. They were treated with antibiotics for a urinary 
tract infection (UTI). Workup also showed the enrollee as alert and oriented, with normal platelet count, normal 
bilirubin, oxygen saturation (SpO2) of 97%, no oliguria, and no hypotension. Creatinine improved to 1.0 
following initial fluids. The documentation did not reveal any results supporting tubular necrosis such as 
identification of casts, etc. The kidney function improved with fluids, which doesn't support kidney failure but 
rather acute kidney injury. The Sepsis-3 criteria were not met as there was insufficient evidence of organ 
failure directly related to a dysregulated response to systemic infection.  
 
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 May 9, 2022, to May 20, 2022, at the Diagnosis Related Group 
(DRG) originally billed.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) or receiver, supplies 
and accessories provided on May 24, 2023. You asked the Plan to pay for the CGM or receiver, supplies and accessories. You say that you are requesting 
reconsideration of payment for services rendered.  The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
documentation requirements have not been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules state that DMEPOS is covered only when there is a valid 
physician order, order date, proof of delivery and relevant medical records which support medical necessity.  
 
The record does not contain an order date which supports medical necessity for the supplies provided in this 
case. The records provided show that the prescription is signed but not dated. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pay for a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) or receiver, supplies and accessories 
provided on May 24, 2023.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the left upper eyelid blepharoplasty. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the left upper eyelid blepharoplasty. You say that the enrollee needs surgery 
for her droopy eyelid. You say the enrollee's vision is fine, but her left eyelid falls over and blocks her vision. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the upper eyelid blepharoplasty 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 pre-approve the left upper eyelid blepharoplasty. 
Our reviewer says that the requested service is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. 
Our physician reviewer found the documentation showed dermatochalasis of the left eyelid and referred the 
enrollee for further evaluation and possible surgery. There was a limited eyelid exam without measurement of 
the margin reflex distance (MRD), no external photos taken, nor formal visual field testing. Since there was no 
detailed eye exam documenting MRD, no external photos, nor formal visual field testing, the criteria for 
blepharoplasty has not been met. 
 
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 left upper eyelid blepharoplasty have not been met. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the left upper eyelid blepharoplasty.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 70450 billed for date of service February 20, 
2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 70450. You say that these procedures were separately performed 
medically necessary procedures that were billed with the appropriate modifiers. You say that the medical 
records should be reviewed, and the claim reprocessed for payment. 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 February 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 the enrollee needs this care to regain strength. 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 complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation can be provided 
in a lower level of care and does not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach 
to rehabilitation care. The enrollee requires treatment by multiple therapies, including physical therapy and 
occupational therapy, but this can be provided in a lower level of care. There is documentation that there is 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, but the services required can be provided at a lower level of 
care.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a home ventilator system. 
 
  You asked the Plan to pre-approve a home ventilator system. You say that the enrollee has COPD and chronic 
respiratory failure. You say that the enrollee requires a non-invasive ventilator to help blow off excessive 
carbon dioxide. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says a home ventilator is not medically necessary for 
this patient because their needs can be met with an alternative device such as a BiPAP device with average 
volume-assured pressure support (AVAPS).  
 
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 ventilator system. Our reviewer 
says that a home ventilator system is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee 
has severe COPD and previous hospitalizations with arterial blood gases consistent with chronic carbon 
dioxide retention. However, there is no diagnosis of thoracic restrictive disease or neuromuscular disease. The 
enrollee may benefit from BiPAP with volume assurance during sleep, which has not been tried and failed as 
an outpatient. Therefore, a home ventilator is 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 a home ventilator system have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve a home ventilator system.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Dexcom G7 continuous glucose monitor (CGM).  
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a CGM. You say that the enrollee needs this. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says the enrollee is not on insulin and does not have documentation of problematic hypoglycemia. 
The Plan also says a continuous glucose monitor is not covered under current Medicare criteria. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that therapeutic CGMs are considered medically 
reasonable and necessary when prescribed in accordance with their FDA indications for enrollees with diabetes 
who are insulin treated or who have a history of problematic hypoglycemia and have had an in-person visit 
with their treating physician to evaluate their diabetes control and determine whether the criteria for coverage 
have been met. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The documentation indicates that the enrollee does not use insulin or 
have a history of problematic hypoglycemia. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of a CGM have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a 
Dexcom G7 continuous glucose monitor (CGM).
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 inpatient rehabilitation services would improve 
the enrollee's quality of life. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested services is not 
medically necessary, and the enrollee's medical condition and needs are best addressed in a skilled nursing 
facility (SNF) 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 can be provided 
in a lower level of care and does not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach 
to rehabilitation care. The enrollee requires treatment by multiple therapies, including physical therapy and 
occupational therapy, but this can be provided in a lower level of care. There is documentation that there is 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, but the services required can be provided 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 you were independent and active before going to the 
hospital and wish to return to being independent as quickly as possible. You say that you are eager to 
participate and complete the required three hours of therapy and unfortunately you will not get that in a nursing 
home setting. 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 your medical problems are stable and there are no complex nursing or 
rehabilitation needs. While the medical record supports a need for physical or occupational therapy, there is no 
documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different 
level of care.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve 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 IRF care is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says IRF care 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 do 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 records support a need for physical 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: Lab
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for procedure code G0482 billed for date of service July 18, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the billed service. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that there are no 
modifiers allowed with this code pair. 
 
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 looked at the file and the rules. The Plan denied code G0482 stating the code pair of G0482 and 80307 has 
a PTP modifier indicator of 0. We find that CPT code G0482 is supported. The rules show that the PTP edits 
for code pair G0482 and 80307 have been withdrawn, retroactive from July 1, 2023. Based on this information, 
we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the billed service have been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan has to pay for procedure code G0482 billed for date of service July 18, 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.