Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a positron emission tomography (PET) with 
concurrently acquired computed tomography (CT) scan skull base to mid-thigh. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve PET/CT scan. You say that the services are medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the request does not meet the Medicare or health plan coverage criteria.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that PET 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 PET/CT scan. Our reviewer says that 
the PET/CT scan is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the previous PET/CT scan was not 
hypermetabolic. The biopsies were both negative and there is no indication of a malignancy. Therefore, the 
requested PET/CT scan cannot be 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 PET/CT scan have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a positron emission tomography (PET) with concurrently acquired computed tomography 
(CT) scan skull base to mid-thigh.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve 2 home health visits. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve home health services. You say that if you do not receive the services, you 
could go back to the emergency room. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that 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 2 additional visits of home health skilled nursing care are medically necessary. Our physician 
reviewer found that the enrollee has a medical history of multiple sclerosis with suprapubic catheter and 
ostomy. The enrollee requires a wheelchair for mobility. The enrollee has been receiving home health skilled 
nursing care since August 5, 2022.  A skilled home health skilled nursing progress note dated May 12, 2023, 
indicated that the enrollee was compliant with their medications. The enrollee is noted to have contracture and 
limited mobility. The enrollee stoma was intact. The enrollee was educated in terms of ostomy care and their 
suprapubic catheter was flushed.   
 
The enrollee has limited mobility and ability to perform her daily activities due to multiple sclerosis. The 
enrollee is limited in terms of their ability to leave their home and requires intermittent skilled nursing care for 
management and surveillance of their ostomy and suprapubic catheter, which they cannot change by 
themselves. 
 
  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 been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to 
pre-approve 2 home health visits.  
 
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 the enrollee's medical needs require inpatient 
rehabilitation and physician oversight. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the IRF services requested 
do 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a home ventilator. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a home ventilator. You say that without the ventilator the patient won't be 
able to breathe on her own. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says a home ventilator is not medically 
necessary. The patient's records do not show that they have failed treatment with continuous positive airway 
pressure (CPAP) or bilevel positive airway pressure (BIPAP) or that the requested ventilator will not be used 
exclusively in CPAP or bi-level PAP mode. 
 
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. 
 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 necessary. Our physician reviewer found the provided records in this 
case document a diagnosis of chronic respiratory failure consequent to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 
However, the provided records document that the home ventilator is being requested for use in intelligent 
volume assured pressure support (IVAPS) mode with auto-EPAP (AE) which could be provided by a BiPAP 
device with average volume assured pressure support (AVAPS) and a back-up rate. The provided records do 
not document trial and failure of a BiPAP device with AVAPS and a back-up rate. The provided records in this 
case do not provide adequate detailed information to meet Medicare criteria for coverage of a ventilator as 
opposed to a BiPAP device with AVAPS and a back-up rate.  
 
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.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure codes J1642 and 96523 billed for date of service 
September 28, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the billed services. You say that medical records were submitted. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the services are not separately payable. 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 J1642 is a column II code to column I code 96365. Code J1642 has 
not been billed with an appropriate modifier to bypass the edit. We have also confirmed that code 96523 is a 
column II code to column I code 96365 with a modifier indicator of 0. The column II code is therefore not 
payable. 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 codes J1642 and 96523 billed for date of service September 28, 
2022.
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 want the IRF admission approved so you can 
return home safely with your family. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the IRF services requested 
do 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 that you do 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 you 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: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a positron emission tomography (PET) scan.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the PET scan. You say that the services are medically necessary.  The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the criteria for coverage have not been met. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules state that a PET scan for dementia and neurodegenerative 
diseases are only covered under certain conditions. 
 
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 PET scan. Our reviewer says that 
the service is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee is not noted to meet criteria 
for either let alone both AD and FTD. The base requirement for coverage of the requested service would not 
have been met in this case. Therefore, this service would not meet Medicare criteria for coverage. 
 
 
 We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the PET scan have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a positron emission tomography (PET) scan.
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 would benefit from daily physician 
assessment and therapy services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services the enrollee needs 
can be provided safely in another setting such as a skilled nursing facility, home with home health services, or 
home with outpatient therapy. 
 
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies. While the medical 
record supports a need for physical or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive 
rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different level of care. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: 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 it is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee is receiving appropriate in-patient acute care and is currently 
unstable for transfer to an LTACH. 
 
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 a 74-year-old who was admitted to the acute care hospital with toe 
cellulitis and osteomyelitis and gas gangrene requiring antibiotics, wound debridement, wound VAC, and complicated by pneumonia, bacteremia and respiratory failure requiring intubation. Recent notes describe the 
patient as now afebrile without leukocytosis, tolerating oral diet, tolerating room air post extubation.  
1. The enrollee appears to be improving with current treatment and should only require short-term additional 
acute care services that can safely be provided at the current facility until more stable and appropriate for a 
lower level of care. The enrollee does not require services at the LTACH that are not already available at the 
current facility.  
2. There are no services at the LTACH that the enrollee requires that are not already available and covered at 
the current facility.  
3. Transfer to the LTACH is not medically necessary as it would not be clinically advantageous. Completion of 
treatment at the current facility is recommended. 
 
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 currently meets the criteria for an IRF 
admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet all the requirements 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 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a home ventilator. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a home ventilator. You say that a home ventilator is medically necessary. 
The patient was in the hospital for respiratory failure and bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) proved 
insufficient. They were then placed on a ventilator and improved with this device. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the requested ventilator is only going to be used in a BiPAP average volume assured 
pressure support (AVAPS) mode, so a 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. 
 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 necessary. Our physician reviewer found this patient was recently 
hospitalized and arterial blood gas was consistent with acute on chronic hypercarbic respiratory failure.  The 
patient has obesity hypoventilation syndrome, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and pulmonary 
hypertension.  Pulmonary function tests show severe restrictive lung disease. There is no diagnosis of thoracic 
restrictive disease, neuromuscular disease, or COPD.  This patient may benefit from BiPAP during sleep as an 
outpatient.  Medicare does not cover a home ventilator for the treatment of obesity hypoventilation syndrome, 
or when used at settings that can be provided with BiPAP. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of a home ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a home ventilator.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee's medical needs require an IRF 
admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the IRF services requested do 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 IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee is not able to perform any activities of 
daily living independently. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an IRF admission is not medically 
necessary, and the enrollee's needs can be safely met in other settings.  
 
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 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 IRF admission and services.