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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee is in critical need of intense physical and 
occupational therapy in order to maximize their recovery. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the rules 
for coverage have not been met, therefore the inpatient rehabilitation facility services cannot be approved.  
 
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's medical problems are stable and there are no complex nursing or 
rehabilitation needs. The enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies 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. 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 non-pneumatic compression controller with sequential 
calibrated gradient pressure (K1024) and a non-pneumatic sequential compression garment, half leg (K1033) to 
be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a non-pneumatic compression system and garment. You say that the 
enrollee will benefit from a Dayspring home pneumatic compression device. The Plan denied your request. The 
Plan says the enrollee must use network providers to get her medical care and services. 
 
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 pre-approve care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving 
emergencies, out of area urgent care and care that cannot be provided by network providers. 
 The requested provider in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan has network providers 
available who can provide the items/services at issue in this appeal. We found no exception that would require 
the Plan to pre-approve these items/services. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve 
a non-pneumatic compression controller with sequential calibrated gradient pressure (K1024) and a non-
pneumatic sequential compression garment, half leg (K1033) to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) 
provider.
Appeal type: Testing
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 76641 billed for date of service April 24, 
2023.  
 You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 76641. You say that these services were necessary and are 
supported in the medical record. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the number of units billed 
exceeds the maximum allowed.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that claims submitted where the unit of service 
exceeds the MUE value for the HCPCS/CPT code will be denied. 
 
In this case, the MUE for CPT code 76641 is 1. The MAI value for this code is 2. You billed 2 units of this 
code, exceeding the MUE. Specifically, you billed one line item of this code with the LT modifier and one line 
item of this code with the RT modifier instead of billing one line item with the bilateral modifier as is required. 
Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of procedure code 76641 have not been 
met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 76641 billed for date of 
service April 24, 2023.
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 IRF care is needed to regain functional mobility. 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 found to be medically reasonable and necessary for this enrollee. Our physician reviewer 
found the medical records significantly comply with requirements for an IRF admission. The enrollee's 
condition is complex and fragile, and there is every reason to expect that the enrollee will participate in and 
benefit from IRF services. Therefore, the requested inpatient rehabilitation 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 these services are medically necessary for you. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says these services can be provided 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 no acute rehabilitation skilled nursing needs identified or documented. At the current 
functional level, you do not need specialized intensive therapies. Document does not support necessity for 
admission to an IRF. The rehabilitation needs can be provided in an alternate and low intensity 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 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 the inpatient rehabilitation facility services are 
medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says admission to an inpatient rehabilitation 
facility 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 found to be medically reasonable and necessary for this enrollee. Our physician reviewer 
found The enrollee's medical record overall significantly complies with the various documentation 
requirements for IRF admission, as best summarized by the physiatry evaluation on October 18, 2023. The 
enrollee's condition is in fact complex and fragile, and there is every reason to expect that they will participate 
in and benefit from services to include at minimum: physical therapy, 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 as well as avoid preventable readmissions to the acute 
hospital. The requested inpatient rehabilitation 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: Drugs
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve carboplatin (J9045), gemcitabine hydrochloride (HCl) (J9201), 
pembrolizumab (J9271), and dexamethasone sodium phosphate (J1100). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the drug regimen. You say that this is medically necessary for the enrollee's 
condition. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the requested regimen is not approved by the Food 
and Drug Administration (FDA) for the enrollee's condition. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare may pay for unlabeled uses for anti-cancer 
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 the drug regimen. Our reviewer says 
that the criteria for coverage have been met. Our physician reviewer found the requested use of carboplatin 
(J9045), gemcitabine hydrochloride (HCl) (J9201), pembrolizumab (J9271), and dexamethasone sodium 
phosphate (J1100) is FDA-approved for the enrollees diagnosis. Pembrolizumab is approved for patients with 
metastatic small cell lung cancer (SCLC) with disease progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy 
and at least one other prior line of therapy. The use of these drugs is not listed as not indicated or not supported 
in any of the compendia. The use of pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy has shown to improve 
survival. The trials have shown that the drug combination in question is safe and effective. Therefore, the 
reviewer found that the requested drug regimen is reasonable and necessary for the enrollee.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the drug regimen have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-
approve carboplatin (J9045), gemcitabine hydrochloride (HCl) (J9201), pembrolizumab (J9271), and 
dexamethasone sodium phosphate (J1100).  
 
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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a bone marrow aspirate (20939). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a bone marrow aspirate. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the clinical value and effectiveness of bone marrow aspirate in the setting of 
spinal fusion surgery have not been demonstrated in the peer-reviewed literature. 
 
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 a bone marrow aspirate. Our reviewer 
says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found bone marrow aspirate is experimental in spine surgery. 
 
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 bone marrow aspirate have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve a bone marrow aspirate (20939).
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the practitioner services provided on May 18, 2023, billed 
with procedure code 99231. 
 
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 two of the billed diagnosis codes cannot be 
reported together. 
 The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that providers must comply with ICD-10-CM coding 
guidelines. One such guideline indicates that certain diagnosis codes have an Excludes1 note which lists other 
diagnosis codes with which they cannot be reported.  
 
In this case, we have confirmed that R56.9 has an Excludes1 note in relation to G40.901. This means that the 
two diagnosis codes cannot be reported together. Based on this information, we decided that the Medicare 
billing rules for the practitioner services provided have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pay for the practitioner services provided on May 18, 2023, billed with procedure code 99231.
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 an IRF admission is medically necessary for the 
enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet 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 enrollees nursing, medical, and rehabilitation needs are complex. However, they 
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 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 an eye exam and diagnostic imaging to be provided by 
an out-of-network (OON) provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the vision services. You say that the enrollee does not feel comfortable 
receiving follow-up care with a different provider. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there are 
network providers available. 
 
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 pre-approve care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving 
emergencies, out of area urgent care and care that cannot be provided by network providers. 
 
You are not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan has network providers available who can provide the items/services at issue in this appeal. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pre-approve these 
items/services. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an eye exam and diagnostic 
imaging to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve home health skilled nursing (G0299 x9). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve home health services. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the services are not medically necessary.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that home health care services may be covered if it is 
medically necessary for the enrollee to receive skilled nursing or therapy. A doctor must certify the need for 
home health care services. 
 
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 home health services. Our reviewer 
says that the services are not medically reasonable and necessary. Our physician reviewer found clinical 
documentation does not specify any acute clinical concerns or medication changes. The records do not show 
that 9 home health skilled nursing visits are required to effectively provide treatment, care, and/or services in 
order to improve the enrollee's condition, or to establish/perform a maintenance program to maintain the 
enrollee's condition and/or prevent deterioration. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of home health services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve home health skilled nursing (G0299 x9).
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Prochlorperazine tablets. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the medication. You say that the use of this drug is for prevention of nausea 
and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy. You also say that this drug is to be taken once every six 
hours. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the medication is not covered as a medical benefit under the 
Plan. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare Part B generally does not pay for self-
administered drugs. The self-administered drugs requested here are not among the types which are covered by 
Medicare Part B. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Prochlorperazine tablets.  
 
Benefits for the medication may be available under Medicare Part D. Contact the Plan that administers Part D 
benefits for further information concerning any benefits and appeal rights.
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 require inpatient rehabilitation to have the 3 
hours of daily physical and occupational therapy so you can regain strength after being in the hospital. You 
were at a higher level of functioning before being hospitalized last month. The Plan denied your request. The 
Plan says your condition does not meet all of 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 your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not require an 
acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation 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 (K0861, 
E2377, E2313, E1028, E1007, E2300, E1028, E0953, E1012, E2311, E2361, E2624, E0955, E2620). 
 
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 the 
enrollee is not at high risk for skin breakdown, does not use a catheter or have spasticity compromising his 
positioning. His skin is relatively intact, and he has used a manual wheelchair for some 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 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 (K0861, E2377, 
E2313, E1028, E1007, E2300, E1028, E0953, E1012, E2311, E2361, E2624, E0955, E2620).