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's care team recommends IRF admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's rehabilitation needs are also not complex enough to require coordinated care between therapy disciplines.

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 while the records show that the patient does require physical and occupational therapy, there is no documented need for an intensive rehabilitation program. Medically necessary services can be provided in a different level of care. There is not a reasonable expectation that this patient will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF. 

We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services.

You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the stay is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the stay 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 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 were admitted for septic shock and necrotizing fasciitis. Medical conditions are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. You do not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. You do require physical and occupational therapy but there is no documented need for an intensive rehabilitation program. Medically necessary services 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 acute IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the nutria-pharmaceutical injections and treatment with a Sanexas device reported on October 22, 2020.

You asked the Plan to pay for the nutria-pharmaceutical injections and treatment with a Sanexas device. You say that the treatment was medically necessary and should be covered. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the record does not support that the procedures were performed as 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 HCPCS/CPT Code Manual definition of code 97016 is application of blood vessel compression or decompression device to 1 or more areas. The HCPCS/CPT Code Manual definition of code 97032 is application of a modality to 1 or more areas; electrical stimulation (manual), each 15 minutes. The HCPCS/CPT Code Manual definition of code 97150 is therapeutic procedure(s), group (2 or more individuals). The HCPCS/CPT Code Manual definition of code 96372 is therapeutic, prophylactic, or diagnostic injection (specify substance or drug); subcutaneous or intramuscular. The HCPCS/CPT Code Manual definition of code J3490 is unclassified drug injection. The HCPCS/CPT Code Manual definition of code J3411 is injection, thiamine hcl, 100 mg. The HCPCS/CPT Code Manual definition of code J3415 is injection, pyridoxine hcl, 100 mg.

We find that HCPCS/CPT codes 97016, 97032, and 97150 are not supported in the medical record. Specifically, the record does not support that a blood vessel compression device was applied. The manufacturer of the Sanexas device describes it as an electric cell signaling energy wave device, which does not meet the criteria to report CPT code 97016. The record also does not support that manual electrical stimulation was applied to any area for any amount of time. The record states that the Sanexas device was applied using standard programs. This does not support constant direct patient contact, which is required to report CPT code 97032. The record also does not support that therapeutic procedures in a group of 2 or more was performed. The record does not mention any therapeutic procedures, or the presence of any other patients receiving therapy at the same time; the criteria for reporting CPT code 97150 has not been met.

Payment for HCPCS/CPT codes 96372, J3490, J3411, and J3415 are not supported. Specifically, the record does not contain documentation of the dosage and type of drug administered in each injection, which is required by Medicare for these services to be reimbursed.

Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the nutria-pharmaceutical injections and treatment with a Sanexas device have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the nutria-pharmaceutical injections and treatment with a Sanexas device reported on October 22, 2020.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the limited oral evaluation (D0140) and the panoramic x-ray (D0330) provided on January 26, 2021.
You asked the Plan to pay for the dental services. You say that you sought out a provider that could fix your jaw issues. You say that you needed an x-ray to determine the problem. You also say that you need other services to ensure your teeth are healthy before your jaw issues can be addressed. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says limited oral evaluation is not listed as a covered service. The Plan says that panoramic x-ray is not listed as a covered service either.
Medicare generally does not cover dental services. However, the Plan offers a dental benefit that exceeds Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plan's coverage rules apply in this case.
Though the Plan offers a dental benefit in excess of Medicare coverage, the requested items or services are not among those covered under this benefit. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the limited oral evaluation (D0140) and the panoramic x-ray (D0330) provided on January 26, 2021.
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 in order for you to regain strength and to go back to normal daily living you would require acute level rehab. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that you can continue to safely receive the services you need in your current hospital 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. The complexity of your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. You were admitted for myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, coronary artery bypass grafting, and pneumonia. Your medical conditions are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. You do not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. You do require physical and occupational therapy but there is no documented need for an intensive rehabilitation program. Medically necessary services 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. Our physician reviewer found that your condition does not meet Medicare criteria for IRF 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: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve SNF care.

You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that the stay is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the stay 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 daily skilled services are not necessary. Our physician reviewer found there are no identifiable skilled nursing service needs. There are no identifiable skilled therapy service needs. The enrollee does not require skilled nursing or therapy services on a daily basis. This enrollee does not meet severity of illness or intensity of service criteria for 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 SNF care.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a knee brace (L1830) provided on January 27, 2021, by an out of network provider.

You asked the Plan to pay for a knee brace. You say that the requested item was dispensed to the enrollee in good faith. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says rules for out of network care have not been met.

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 a knee brace (L1830) provided on January 27, 2021, by an out of network provider.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the outpatient laboratory services (80053, 36415, 85025, 80061) provided on December 10, 2020 by an out of network (OON) provider.

You asked the Plan to pay for the outpatient services. You say that you moved from Florida and was told that you couldn't have the same plan. You got a new plan, however you discovered that the Plan would cover until the end of the year and the charges should be covered and paid. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says enrollee's must receive their medical services from an in-network provider with the exception being urgent or emergent services. Non-emergent services with non-contracted providers require prior authorization before services being rendered.

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 the outpatient laboratory services (80053, 36415, 85025, 80061) provided on December 10, 2020 by an out of network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an outdoor lift provided on June 8, 2020.

You asked the Plan to pay for an outdoor lift. You say that the requested item was necessary for your care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says rules for durable medical equipment have not been met.

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 pay for an outdoor lift provided on June 8, 2020.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for physician services (99222) provided December 5, 2020.
You asked the Plan to pay for the physician services. You say that the services were medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says payment for this service was included in payment for another service 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. We find that CPT code 99222 is not supported in the medical record. Specifically, Payment for this service was included in CPT code 99226 which was billed by the same physician group on the same date of service. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the physician services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for physician services (99222) provided December 5, 2020.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Favorable

We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve canaloplasty for the enrollee.

You asked the Plan to pre-approve the procedure. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that there is insufficient published evidence to assess the safety and/or impact on health outcomes or patient management.

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 pre-approve the procedure. Our reviewer says that the requested services are considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found the medical record and appeal letter submitted state that the enrollee has progressive disease and requires aggressive control of pressure beyond conservative measures. The journal Ophthalmology Glaucoma published by the American Academy of Ophthalmology recently published an article stating that sequential combination of canaloplasty followed by trabeculotomy performed as standalone procedures in pseudophakic patients with open-angle glaucoma provides effective IOP reduction or sustained IOP control and meaningful medication reduction for up to 12 months postoperatively. The medical necessity and reasonableness, as defined by Medicare rules, of the requested services is established.

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 procedure have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-approve canaloplasty for the enrollee.

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 the Vertiflex device.

You asked the Plan to pre-approve the device. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this is considered experimental.

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 device. Our reviewer says that the requested services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found the device is experimental. More research is needed to show safety and efficacy of the device. 

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 device have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Vertiflex device.
Appeal type: Outpatient Therapies
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve ten (10) additional PT visits.

You asked the Plan to pre-approve ten (10) additional PT visits. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says ongoing PT is not reasonable and necessary as the enrollee has made significant gains and improved tolerance of activities of daily living.

The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for medically necessary outpatient therapy.

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 ten (10) additional PT visits. Our reviewer says that skilled services are not necessary to restore or maintain function or to prevent deterioration of the enrollee's condition. Our physician reviewer found based on the medical records provided there is no documentation that the requested therapy is generally accepted as specific and effective therapy for the enrollee's condition. Based on the available records, the enrollee appears to have improved with therapy to the point of being able to walk up to 350 feet multiple times with a rolling walker with stand-by assistance. Further skilled therapy at this point does not appear to be likely to achieve any significant improvement in the enrollee's symptoms or functional status. Further utilization of a home exercise program appears appropriate at this point. There is no documentation that the unique skills of a professional therapist are required to safely and effectively provide treatment, that the services can be safely and effectively performed only by a therapist or under the supervision of a therapist. There is no documentation that the specialized skill, knowledge and judgment of a qualified therapist is required to establish, design and/or deliver a program to maintain the enrollee's current condition or to prevent or slow further 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 ten (10) additional PT visits have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve ten (10) additional PT visits.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an implanted electrical stimulator.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the stimulator. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there is no evidence of other conservative therapies.
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 stimulator. Our reviewer says that the requested services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found the records only show one year of back pain without exhausting conservative measures. A trial of physical therapy and other medications is needed for back pain treatment. 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 stimulator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an implanted electrical stimulator.