Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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 enrollee was re-admitted to the hospital due to 
increased pain following spinal decompression. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the IRF 
services you are requesting 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 found to be medically reasonable and necessary for this enrollee. Our physician reviewer 
found the complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical, and rehabilitation needs does require an acute hospital 
inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The enrollee does require treatment by 
multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation 
therapy program at least three hours a day and 5 days a week, or 15 hours over seven consecutive days. The 
enrollee does have a significant decline from his baseline level of function and would benefit from the intensity 
of therapies provided in acute inpatient rehabilitation. 
 
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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a pneumatic compression device (E0652) and a 
segmental gradient pressure pneumatic appliance, full leg (E0671). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a pneumatic compression device and an appliance. You say that you are 
requesting reconsideration due to medical necessity. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the records 
do not show that the enrollee meets the indications for coverage of this device. The enrollee has chronic venous 
insufficiency. Records do not document exam findings of truncal edema. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules state that a PCD coded as E0652 is covered for the treatment of 
lymphedema extending onto the chest, trunk and/or abdomen after a four-week trial of conservative therapy 
demonstrating failed response to treatment with an E0650 or E0651. At least four weeks of regular, daily, 
multiple-hour home usage of the E0650 or E0651 is required. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of the PCD have not been met. Specifically, the record does not show that the enrollee had at least 
four weeks of regular, daily, multiple-hour home usage of the E0650 or E0651 after careful, in-person fitting, 
training and supervision by a technician who is skilled in and who regularly and successfully uses the appliance 
provided.  Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a pneumatic compression device 
(E0652) and a segmental gradient pressure pneumatic appliance, full leg (E0671).
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 the services are medically necessary to 
stabilize the enrollee and get them strong enough to return home at baseline.  The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says the enrollee is receiving appropriate inpatient 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 receiving appropriate care in their acute care setting provided by the 
Health Plan. The LTACH services requested are not supported or medically appropriate by the medical 
documentation provided. 
 
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: Surgery
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for procedure code 20902 rendered on November 7, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. You say that this should be paid for. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says that the records do not support the services 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. In this case, the CPT Code Manual definition of 
code 20902 is "Bone graft, any donor area; major or large." 
 
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 the services. Our reviewer says that the services at issue in 
this case were supported by the medical records. Our reviewer found that the enrollee was being treated for a 
cervical spine tumor with spinal cord compression and edema; cervical spine instability. He underwent a C1 
laminectomy for epidural and intradural tumor resection and occiput to C3 posterior fixation and fusion with 
rotation of vascularized occipital bone flap on 11/7/22. The procedure details cite they preserved a vascularized 
pedicle to the occipital bone on the right side and turned a 3cm craniotomy with the muscle attached to be used 
for the fusion later in the case. The joints were debrided at C1-2, C2-3, and C3-4 and placed morselized 
allograft into the joint spaces. Therefore, the records do support CPT 20902 in this case. 
 
We looked at this coder's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the services have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for 
procedure code 20902 rendered on November 7, 2022.  
 
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: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for inpatient hospital services billed with diagnosis code A41.9 rendered 
from October 1, 2022, to October 5, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the inpatient hospital services at the DRG originally billed. You say that this 
should be paid for. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the determination to remove diagnosis 
code A41.9, (Sepsis, unspecified organism) remains upheld. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report inpatient hospital services with the appropriate DRG, which is based, in part, on the 
reported principal and secondary diagnosis codes.   
 
In this case, you billed the inpatient services provided with diagnosis code A41.9. We asked our physician 
reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to determine if the Plan was 
correct in denying the request to pay for the inpatient hospital services at the DRG originally billed. Our 
reviewer says that the services at issue in this case were supported by the medical records. Our physician 
reviewer found that the enrollee had systemic inflammatory response with elevated white blood cell count, 
tachycardia and fever, with documented sources of infection, including cellulitis and lung infiltrate. This meets 
criteria for sepsis. Therefore, diagnosis code A41.9 is supported in this case. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided the 
medical records do substantiate the DRG as billed. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for inpatient 
hospital services billed with diagnosis code A41.9 rendered from October 1, 2022, to October 5, 2022.  
 
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 pneumatic compression device (E0652) and a 
segmental pneumatic appliance for use with pneumatic compressor, full leg (E0667). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a pneumatic compression device and an appliance. You say that you 
disagree with the denial and request reconsideration. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request is 
not medically necessary because the records show the enrollee does not have appropriate documentation of 
truncal edema, a 4-week trial of conservative therapy, or a 4-week trial of daily, multiple hour usage of a basic 
pump. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules state that a PCD coded as E0652 is covered for the treatment of 
lymphedema extending onto the chest, trunk and/or abdomen after a four-week trial of conservative therapy 
demonstrating failed response to treatment with an E0650 or E0651. At least four weeks of regular, daily, 
multiple-hour home usage of the E0650 or E0651 is required. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of the PCD have not been met. Specifically, the record does not show that the enrollee had at least 
four weeks of regular, daily, multiple-hour home usage of the E0650 or E0651 after careful, in-person fitting, 
training and supervision by a technician who is skilled in and who regularly and successfully uses the appliance 
provided.  Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a pneumatic compression device 
(E0652) and a segmental pneumatic appliance for use with pneumatic compressor, full leg (E0667).
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for home health services provided February 21, 2023 to March 
14, 2023. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for the home health services. You say that this service was medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the NOA was not received timely. As such, this final claim was 
correctly denied.  
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that an NOA must be submitted within 5 days of the start of 
care date for home health services. NOAs which are received more than 30 days from the timely filing date 
result in no payment being made for the episode of care.  
 
In this case, the start of care date is February 21, 2023. The NOA was not received by the Plan until March 25, 
2023. As more than 30 days passed between the timely filing date and the NOA receipt, no payment can be 
made on this claim. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for home health services provided 
February 21, 2023 to March 14, 2023.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve use of a ventilator. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve ventilator. You say that the enrollee requires average volume assured 
pressure support (AVAPS) mode. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says a ventilator is not covered by 
Medicare for this purpose and the record does not show that the enrollee has failed use of a bilevel positive 
airway pressure (BiPAP) device. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that ventilator products used to provide positive 
airway pressure (PAP) therapy, regardless of the underlying medical condition, shall not be covered.  
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve use 
of a ventilator.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Helio blood test (36415, 0333U). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the Helio blood test. You say that your specialist needs you to complete a 
Helio liver test because the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed something on your pancreas. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the Helio blood test is not medically necessary for the enrollee's condition. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that items and services that are not medically 
necessary are not covered.   
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the Helio blood test. Our reviewer says 
that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found it is unclear from the documentations whether this Helio test is being done to monitor 
for recurrence after resection or if there is a new concerning finding on imaging to raise concern for new 
hepatocellular carcinoma. Given the current documentation, there is no evidence to suggest that Helio liver test 
is medically reasonable and necessary. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the Helio blood test have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve the Helio blood test (36415, 0333U).
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for the Guardant 360 CDx liquid biopsy (0242U) provided February 27, 
2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the genetic testing. You say that you are appealing the Plan's determination and 
requesting full payment for Guardant360 CDx at the Medicare rate of $5,000. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says that Medicare's medical necessity criteria have not been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that if there are no specific coverage rules for an item 
or service, then that item or service will be covered when it is 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 pay for the genetic testing. Our reviewer says that 
the requested items/services are considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found the enrollee has metastatic stage IV breast cancer and has not previously tested with the same 
test using NGS for the same cancer genetic content and decided to seek further cancer treatment. The Guardant 
360 DX test has FDA-approval for patient's breast cancer and has the report template to specify treatment 
options. All of the above NCD criteria are 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 genetic testing have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to 
pay for the Guardant 360 CDx liquid biopsy (0242U) provided February 27, 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: 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 there is no reason you can't manage the rehabilitation 
needed. You say you are very active, and this will help you achieve the best recovery for yourself so you can 
continue to live the life you have. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says criteria for admission to the 
acute IRF setting have not been met. 
 
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. The documentation shows 
that you require ongoing physical and occupational therapy, but it does not show that you require an intensive 
rehabilitation regimen in an IRF 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: 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 it is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the enrollee 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 complexity of the enrollees nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does 
not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The 
enrollee was admitted for surgical management of a bowel obstruction. Medical problems are stable. 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. 
 
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. 
 
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: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a continuation of SNF care. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that you are appealing the denial. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the request is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for care in a SNF when the four factors 
listed in the Medicare rules section are met. Custodial care is 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 SNF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested SNF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found that you do not have daily skilled nursing needs that require the specialized skill, 
knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional nurse. You do not have daily skilled therapy needs that 
require the specialized skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional therapist. You do not require 
daily skilled nursing and/or skilled therapy on an inpatient basis in a SNF 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 SNF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve a continuation of SNF care.