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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that a LTACH is the appropriate level of care 
for the enrollee at this time. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that LTACH services are covered if they are medically 
necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee. 
 
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 LTACH services. Our reviewer says 
that the requested LTACH care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found that the enrollee does not require services at the LTACH that are not available at the 
acute care hospital where they are currently receiving care. All medically necessary care is being provided in 
the current acute care 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 the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve LTACH 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 requires an IRF level of care. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's current medical condition does not meet the requirements for 
approval.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the 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 or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive 
rehabilitation services. 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. Medically necessary care can 
be provided in a different level of care.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you need rehabilitation to start to build strength and 
be able to function on your own again. 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 your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not require an 
acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a home ventilator (E0466). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a home ventilator. You say that a home ventilator is a necessity for your 
care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says a home ventilator is not medically necessary. 
 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. Our reviewer says 
that a home ventilator is not medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found that 
you have amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) with associated neuromuscular disease which will continue to 
progress to chronic respiratory failure requiring full ventilator support. However, there is no provided data or 
documentation to support that at this time; therefore, alternative therapies (such as BIPAP) may benefit you in 
the meantime. You do not require a home ventilator given documentation provided at this junction of your 
disease process. 
 
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 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a home ventilator (E0466).
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 these services are medically necessary for the 
enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says these services can be provided safely in an alternate 
setting.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The enrollee's 
medical problems are stable. The enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies. 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a total electric hospital bed. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a total electric hospital bed. You say that the requested item is a medical 
necessity for the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested item is not a covered 
benefit. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that a total electric hospital bed is not covered.  
 
While a total electric hospital bed may be appropriate in this case, neither the Plan nor Medicare offers 
coverage for this item. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a total electric hospital 
bed.
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 physically immobile and need major 
physical and occupational therapy because of a mid-calf amputation. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says coverage of an  IRF admission is not considered 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 do not require an 
acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. 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: 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 if you are unable to begin rehabilitation services it 
will be harder for you to return to your baseline of independence. 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 your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not require an 
acute rehabilitation hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. 
You do not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, 
at an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. You continue to have a need for skilled therapy with ongoing 
safety concerns and a potential for functional improvement; however, the documentation does no support that 
you would meet criteria for admission to an acute inpatient rehabilitation facility.  There is no indication that 
you would require skilled rehabilitation in an IRF, participating in rehabilitation services 15 hours a week, 
under the supervision of a physician with at least 3 visits weekly to regain or maintain your functional 
status.  You can receive further services at a lower level of care.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee is a fall risk, and the family is afraid the 
next fall the enrollee may not be able to take. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not 
meet Medicare guidelines for services in an IRF.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found 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. 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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure codes 36902, 36907, & 37252 provided on August 
9, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure codes 36902, 36907, & 37252. You say that this service was 
medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the records do not support the codes billed. 
 
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 asked our coder 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 procedure codes 36902, 36907, & 37252. Our reviewer says 
that the documentation does not support the codes billed. Our reviewer found an interpretation report was not 
found in medical record for code 36902. Codes 36907 & 37252 are add-on codes. Since the primary code is not 
supported, the add-on codes are not supported.  
We looked at this coder's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of procedure codes 36902, 36907, & 37252 have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure codes 36902, 36907, & 37252 provided on August 9, 
2021.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

  
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. 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 LTACH services are covered if they are medically 
necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee. 
 
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 LTACH services. Our reviewer says 
that the requested LTACH care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found that the enrollee does not require services at the LTACH that are not available at the 
acute care hospital where they are currently receiving care. All medically necessary care is being provided in 
the current acute care 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 the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve LTACH services.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for an incision and drainage, deep abscess, bursa, or hematoma, thigh or 
knee region (27301) and an arthrotomy, with synovectomy, knee (27334) provided on March 10, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for an outpatient procedure. You say that you disagree with the denial and have 
submitted medical records for review. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that documentation that was 
submitted does not meet the code criteria. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare health plans must make reasonable and 
diligent efforts to gather and forward to the IRE information regarding its decision to deny coverage or 
payment. 
 
The Plan has not made reasonable and diligent efforts to gather and forward to us information regarding their 
decision to deny your request. The Plan did not provide any kind of rationale to support the denial for code 
27301. The rationale used does not appear to apply to code 27334. The records indicate that the service at issue 
was not just a clean-up. The damage to the thigh was so severe that the synovium was also treated. Therefore, 
we decided that the Plan has to pay for an incision and drainage, deep abscess, bursa, or hematoma, thigh or 
knee region (27301) and an arthrotomy, with synovectomy, knee (27334) provided on March 10, 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a hospital bed. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the hospital bed. You say that the hospital bed is medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says coverage criteria has not been met. 
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that a hospital bed may be considered medically necessary 
when at least one of the following criteria is met: 
 
1. The patient has a medical conditions which requires positioning of the body in ways not feasible with an 
ordinary bed; or 
2. The patient requires positioning of the body in ways not feasible with an ordinary bed in order to alleviate 
pain; or 
3. The patient requires the head of the bed to be elevated more than 30 degrees most of the time due to 
congestive heart failure, chronic pulmonary disease, or problems with aspiration. Pillows or wedges must have 
been considered and ruled out; or 
4. The patient requires traction equipment, which can only be attached to a hospital bed. 
 
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 hospital bed. Our reviewer says that 
coverage criteria has not been met. Our physician reviewer found the provided records in this case do not 
document that the patient has a medical condition which requires positioning of the body in ways not feasible 
with an ordinary bed or that the enrollee requires greater than 30 degrees of elevation.  
 
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 hospital bed have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a hospital bed.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for telehealth services provided on January 24, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for telehealth services. You say that the patient was in a nursing home at the time the 
services were rendered, and since your company has an exclusive contract with the facility your doctors are the 
only providers who will treat the patients. You say that the facility does not allow the providers to see the 
patients in person and have requested to service the patients via teleconference. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says telehealth services are covered when provided by a network provider. 
 
The Plan contract says that certain telehealth services are covered. If you choose to get one of these services by 
telehealth, you must use a network provider who offers the service by telehealth.  
 
We looked at the file and the Plans rules. Based on this information, we decided that Plans rules for coverage 
of telehealth services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for telehealth 
services provided on January 24, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure codes J2250, 96374, & 96375 provided on April 
12, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure codes J2250, 96374, & 96375. You say that these services were 
medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the records do 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 asked our coder 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 procedure codes J2250, 96374, & 96375. Our reviewer says 
that the records do not support the codes billed. Our reviewer found for code J2250, records show 2mg 
administered. 4 units were billed. The number of units are not supported. Code 96375 and 96374 are inclusive 
to the moderate sedation billed and not separately payable.  
We looked at this coder's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of procedure codes J2250, 96374, & 96375 have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure codes J2250, 96374, & 96375 provided on April 12, 
2023.