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

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for inpatient hospital services provided on July 30, 2021, to August 1, 
2021, at the Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) originally billed. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the inpatient hospital services at the DRG originally billed. You say that the 
medical records support the billing of diagnosis code N17.9. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that 
the medical records do not support the billing of diagnosis code N17.9. 
 
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 N17.9. 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 medical records support the billing of diagnosis code N17.9. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee 
was with a history of chronic kidney disease who presented to the hospital with a serum creatinine of 2.26, and 
was discharged at a serum creatinine of 1.40, which was considered the enrollee's baseline. The enrollee's 
presentation with creatinine elevation above the enrollee's confirmed lower baseline meets Kidney Disease 
Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria for acute kidney failure, therefore the record supports diagnosis 
code N17.9. 
 
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 provided on July 30, 2021, to August 1, 2021, at the Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) 
originally billed.  
 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 an IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that a lower level of care will compromise the enrollee's 
ability to reach their maximum level of functional outcome and community reintegration. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says admission to an IRF is not medically necessary.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found that 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 does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational 
therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While the enrollee may have a need for physical 
therapy and/or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. 
Medically necessary care can be provided in a different level of care. 
 
There is not a reasonable expectation that the enrollee will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the 
intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve an IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a general health panel (80050) provided on February 2, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for a general health panel. You say that the Plan has denied payment in error. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says rules for payment have not been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that code 80050 (general health panel) is considered a non-
covered code. 
 
You have requested payment for services billed under code 80050. Medicare does not cover or pay for services 
billed under this code. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a general health panel 
(80050) provided on February 2, 2023.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the lab testing billed for date of service June 7, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the billed services. You say that the test was ordered due to the enrollee's 
diagnosis. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the claim for this molecular pathology testing did not 
include the required unique identifier. 
 
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that for molecular diagnostic tests, such as the test at issue, 
the MolDX program requires these tests to be reviewed to determine whether Medicare reasonable and 
necessary requirements are met. When such review is complete, the test is assigned a unique identifier and the 
coverage status is listed in the DEXTM Diagnostics Exchange. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Review of the claim does not show that the required unique identifier 
was reported. 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 the lab testing billed for date of 
service June 7, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for practitioner services provided on November 4, 2022, billed 
with procedure code 90832-95. 
 
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 the claim was billed with an invalid diagnosis. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that an Excludes1 note indicates that the code 
excluded should never be used at the same time as the code above the Excludes1 note. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of the practitioner services provided have not been met. This claim was billed with diagnosis codes 
F32.A and F33.1 which is a code pair that is subject to an Excludes1 note and should not be reported together. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for practitioner services provided on November 4, 
2022, billed with procedure code 90832-95.
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 clearly exceeds the Centers for Medicare 
& Medicaid Services (CMS) established defining criteria for a medically appropriate acute inpatient 
rehabilitation admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an admission to an IRF is not reasonable 
and necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section.  
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The enrollee 
does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and 
an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. Our reviewer found that 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. Our physician reviewer also found that 
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: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you would like reconsideration based on the records 
submitted. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says admission to an IRF is not medically necessary.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found that the complexity of your nursing, medical, and rehabilitation needs does not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. You do not 
require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an 
intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While you may have a need for physical therapy 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 you 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 an IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for laboratory services (0242U) provided on February 22, 2023, 
by an out-of-network (OON) provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for out-of-network laboratory services. You say that these services were necessary 
and are supported in the medical record. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says out-of-network services 
are covered only in certain limited circumstances which have not been met in this case. Neither the provider 
nor the referring physician is in-network with the Plan. 
 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 pay for care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving emergencies, 
out of area urgent care and pre-approved care. 
 
The requested provider in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan had network providers 
available who could have provided the items/services at issue in this appeal. The Plan did not pre-approve the 
item/service at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay for these items/services. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for laboratory services (0242U) provided on February 
22, 2023, by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
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 will not make the significant gains 
necessary to stay at home safely if their care is provided at a lower level of care such as home health or a 
skilled nursing facility.  The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an IRF admission is not medically 
necessary.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found 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.
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 more intense rehabilitation so they 
can perform daily activities. You also say that the enrollee needs to be independent as much as possible to get 
back to where they were before the incident happened. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an 
admission to an IRF is not reasonable and necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section.  
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The enrollee 
does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and 
an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. Our reviewer found that 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. Our physician reviewer also found that 
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: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 81003-26 billed for January 12, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for these services. You say that you disagree with the denial. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the claim was billed incorrectly. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that modifier -26 is required for separate payment of 
the PC services when furnished in a different payment locality than the TC.  
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The file shows that procedure code 81003 was billed with the -26 
modifier. Code 81003 has a PC/TC indicator of 9, meaning the technical and professional components do not 
apply. It is not appropriate to bill code 81003 with the -26 modifier. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pay for procedure code 81003-26 billed for January 12, 2023.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a humidifier (E1399). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a humidifier. You say that this item is medically necessary, and you would 
like to appeal the denial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this service is not covered by Medicare.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that for equipment to be covered, it must primarily serve a 
medical purpose.   
 
The item at issue in this appeal does not serve a purpose that is primarily medical in nature. This item is 
available to the general public and would be helpful even to those who are not sick or injured. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a humidifier (E1399).
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Rituxan. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve Rituxan. You say that a request was received, and the documentation was 
sent. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the step therapy requirements have not been met.  
 
Medicare covers Part B medications when they are reasonable and necessary but allows health plans to 
implement step therapy criteria. The Plan's contract indicates that it has implemented such criteria for certain 
Part B medications. 
 
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 Rituxan. Our reviewer says that 
Rituxan is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee has not tried and failed the 
Plan's required drugs Enbrel, Humira, Kevzar, Rinvoq, Xeljanz or Xeljanz XR. Also, there is no indication that 
the Plan's required drugs would likely be less effective or likely have adverse effects 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 Rituxan have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Rituxan.
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. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an IRF admission is 
not medically necessary.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
  We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found 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 inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a total electric hospital bed, with any type side rails, 
with mattress (E0265). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a total electric hospital bed. You say that the enrollee cannot change their 
position, move their legs or sleep on their side. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this item is not 
covered under Medicare. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that a total electric hospital bed is not covered.  
 
While a total electric hospital bed may be appropriate in this case, neither the Plan nor Medicare offers 
coverage for this item. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a total electric hospital 
bed, with any type side rails, with mattress (E0265).
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for home health services provided from January 28, 2023, to 
February 17, 2023. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for home health services. You say that you have billed the services at issue correctly. 
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 January 28, 2023. The NOA was not received by the Plan until May 15, 
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 
from January 28, 2023, to February 17, 2023.