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 LTACH services. You say that the enrollee needs LTACH services. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the requirements for an LTACH admission. 
Services the enrollee needs could be provided in another level of care. 
 
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 LTACH services. Our reviewer says 
that the requested LTACH care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee is receiving appropriate care in the current acute care setting as provided 
by the Plan. The documentation received does not support that LTACH services are medically appropriate at 
this time. We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve LTACH services.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Qutenza 8% kit. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Qutenza 8% kit. 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 Medicare may pay for unlabeled uses for FDA-
approved drugs if they are medically accepted as safe and effective or appropriate for the particular use.  
 
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 Qutenza 8% kit. Our reviewer says that 
the services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the review has determined that the 
requested use of Qutenza is not FDA-approved for the enrollees diagnosis. Its use is not supported by one of 
the major drug compendia or by clinical research that appears in a CMS-approved medical journal. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of Qutenza 8% kit have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve Qutenza 8% kit.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Partially Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for 36415, 80048, 80061, 82306, 82607, 84443, and 85025. We decided 
that the Plan does not have to pay for P9603.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for various services (procedure codes 36415, 80048, 80061, 82306, 82607, 84443, 
85025, P9603) performed on December 22, 2022. You say that this should be paid for. The Plan says that the 
records do not support the services billed. 
 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for 36415, 80048, 80061, 82306, 82607, 84443, and 85025.  
 
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 coding reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request for the laboratory codes. Our reviewer says that the 
records include documentation showing that these were provided and billed on date of service December 22, 
2022. The criteria for the CPT code descriptions have 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 item/service at issue have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has 
to pay for 36415, 80048, 80061, 82306, 82607, 84443, and 85025.  
 
We also decided that the Plan does not have to pay for P9603. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate CPT code. The definition of P9603 is "Travel allowance 
one way in connection with medically necessary laboratory specimen collection drawn from home bound or 
nursing home bound patient; prorated miles actually travelled." 
 
We asked our coding reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request for P9603. Our reviewer says that the provider reported 
99 units for this code. However, the medical record includes "mileage documentation" which does not include 
sufficient documentation to verify the units billed. The form is not complete, and the code and units cannot be 
verified. 
 
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 item/service at issue have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pay for P9603. 
 
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: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a computed tomography (CT) scan of the chest (71250). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a CT scan. You say that you are appealing a CT scan of the chest due to 
upper right rib pain and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The Plan denied your request. The 
Plan says the request is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that CT scans are covered only when they are 
medically 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 CT scan. Our reviewer says that the 
service is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee's right rib pain has been 
improving. Our reviewer found that no rib series has been done. The medical necessity of the requested CT of 
the chest has not been established in the submitted records. 
 
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 CT scan have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve a computed tomography (CT) scan of the chest (71250).
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a continuous glucose monitor (CGM), supplies and 
accessories. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the CGM, supplies and accessories. You say that the medical records 
provided support the need for the requested CGM, supplies and accessories. The Plan denied your request. The 
Plan says based on Medicare guidelines, the requested medical device used to continuously check blood sugar 
and supplies do not meet the requirements for approval.  
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that therapeutic CGMs may be considered reasonable and 
necessary for enrollees with diabetes who meet the criteria referenced 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 the CGM and accessories. Our reviewer 
says that these items are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the record indicates that the 
enrollee has diabetes. The record provided does not indicate that the enrollee is being treated with insulin or has 
problematic hypoglycemia as defined by the Medicare rules. The elements of coverage criteria are not satisfied. 
 
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 CGM and accessories have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve a continuous glucose monitor (CGM), supplies and accessories.
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 Medicare criteria for acute 
inpatient rehabilitation, care needed cannot be accomplished at lower level of care. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the enrollee's records do not show the need to be seen by a rehabilitation physician at 
least three times a week for evaluation of function and medical goals and progress. 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: 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 IRF care is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the IRF care is not medically necessary, and the enrollee's needs can be met at a 
lower level of care such as a skilled nursing facility  
 
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 has a history of dementia and is living at home receiving treatment for a 
urinary tract infection. The enrollee's medical problems are stable, and 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.  
 
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 pre-approve placement of an implanted loop recorder (ILR). 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve the requested ILR procedure. You say that it is medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested services are not reasonable and necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say ILR placement may be considered medically 
necessary when it is needed to evaluate syncope that is thought to be cardiac-related but occurs too infrequently 
to be detected by traditional external monitors.  
 
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 requested ILR procedure. Our 
reviewer says that the requested ILR procedure is not medically reasonable and necessary based on NCD 
criteria. Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee had no history of atrial fibrillation, nor were any 
significant cardiac arrhythmias noted on electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring. A recent randomized clinical 
trial found that continuous monitoring for atrial fibrillation with an ILR (followed by treatment with oral 
anticoagulation if atrial fibrillation was detected) was not superior to usual care in reducing stroke or systemic 
embolism among patients at high risk of stroke but without a known prior history of atrial fibrillation. At this 
time, insertion of an ILR would not be considered medically appropriate and necessary in this patients clinical 
management. 
 
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 requested ILR procedure have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve placement of an implanted loop recorder (ILR).
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure codes 83520 and 87798 billed for date of service 
January 11, 2023. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for the billed services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the billed codes 
are 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 83520 is immunoassay for analyte other than infectious 
agent antibody or infectious agent antigen; quantitative, not otherwise specified. The definition of code 87798 
is infectious agent detection by nucleic acid (DNA or RNA), not otherwise specified; amplified probe 
technique, each organism. 
 
We find that CPT codes 83520 and 87798 are not supported in the medical record. The records show that a 
panel test and additional stool tests were provided. The records do not indicate what tests are associated with 
the codes that are identified as not otherwise specified. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare 
rules for coverage of the billed services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pay for procedure codes 83520 and 87798 billed for date of service January 11, 2023.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve MRI of the shoulder. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve an MRI. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the required criteria has not been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that MRIs are covered only when they are medically 
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 an MRI. Our reviewer says that the 
service is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the medical necessity of the requested MRI of 
the left shoulder has not been established without provocative maneuvers or a 6-week trial of physical therapy. 
 
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 MRI have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pre-approve MRI of the shoulder.
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 inpatient rehabilitation will assist the enrollee safely 
return to daily activities and independence. 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: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that you need extra monitoring and therapy 
as you recover. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says your records do not show that you have ongoing 
treatments that can only be given in the hospital setting. 
 
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 the record indicates that you are improving but still require acute care services before 
transitioning to a lower level of care. You continue to receive acute care services, and these have not been 
denied. The medical record does not indicate that you require services that you are not currently receiving but 
that would be available at the LTACH facility. 
 
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 long term acute care hospital (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 needs this care to regain strength and 
independence. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollees medical condition does not require 
IRF services, and care can be provided in another 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 enrollees medical problems are stable and there are no complex nursing or 
rehabilitation needs. While the medical record supports a need for physical or occupational therapy, there is no 
documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different 
level of care.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that you are requesting LTACH services for 
the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the Medicare criteria for 
admission to an LTACH care. 
 
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 the enrollee is receiving appropriate care at the present acute care hospital. The 
enrollee does not require services at the LTACH that are not available at the acute care hospital where the 
enrollee is currently receiving 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 the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve LTACH services.