Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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 2, 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 2, 2020.
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 September 23, 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 September 23, 2020.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Coflex device.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Coflex device. You say that this request is medically necessary. The Plan
denied your request. The Plan says the Coflex insertion device is experimental and investigational.
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 Coflex device. Our reviewer says that
the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician
reviewer found that the enrollee is a 67-year-old female being treated for spinal stenosis, lumbar region, with
neurogenic claudication. She presented with 8-9 months of right buttock pain with radiation posteriorly into the
right thigh and calf, not including the foot. There is no paresthesia. There is no back pain at all. Pain is only
produced when she walks around and is relieved with spine flexion. Pain has been getting worse in the past few
months. Exam reveals normal range of motion. There is no tenderness. Strength is equal/symmetric in both
lower extremities. L5 radiculopathy is noted.
In this case, current evidence based medical guideline and peer reviewed literature do not fully support the
spinal decompression device procedure over the 'gold standard' of lumbar laminectomy. There is a lack of
large volume, long-term peer-reviewed outcome studies to support the use of this device for this enrollee's
medical condition as discussed above. Federal Drug Administration (FDA) indications indicate the Coflex
device is for use in one- or two-level lumbar stenosis from L1- L5 in skeletally mature patients with at least
moderate impairment in function, who experience relief in flexion from their symptoms of leg/buttocks/ groin
pain, with or without back pain, and who have undergone at least 6 months of non-operative treatment.
FDA contraindications include prior fusion or decompressive laminectomy, radiographically compromised
vertebral bodies, severe facet hypertrophy, spinal instability, scoliosis, obesity, and osteoporosis. These have
not been adequately addressed in the provided medical records. There is no documentation of the enrollee's
height, weight or body mass index. There is no compelling rationale presented or extenuating circumstances
noted to support the medical necessity of this request as an exception to guidelines. Therefore, the request for
Coflex device is not medically reasonable or 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 Coflex device have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not
have to pre-approve Coflex device.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a referral out-of-network for a heavy walker and seat attachment.

You asked the Plan to pre-approve the referral. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says care must be received from a network provider.

Medicare rules say that plans can require enrollees to get care from network providers. The contract with the Plan says that the Plan has to pre-approve care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving emergencies, out of area urgent care and care that cannot be provided by network providers.

The requested provider in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan has network providers available who can provide the items/services at issue in this appeal. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pre-approve these items/services. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a referral out-of-network for a heavy walker and seat attachment.
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 you disagree with the denial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services are not medically necessary.
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 medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee was admitted to the hospital with respiratory distress, urosepsis, and sacral decubitus. He continues to receive acute care service that have not been denied. The medical record does not indicate that the enrollee requires services that are currently being denied but that would be available at the LTACH facility. The LTACH services are not reasonable or medically 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 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the coinsurance for the oxygen concentrator and portable gaseous oxygen system rental provided on January 27, 2021.

You asked the Plan to waive the coinsurance for the oxygen concentrator and portable gaseous oxygen system rental. You say that you are past the 36-month rule. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says they do not follow a 36-month rule.

The rules say a plan must disclose to its enrollees in clear, accurate terms all cost sharing information (such as co-payments, deductibles and coinsurance). Your contract with the Plan clearly says that you must pay 20% coinsurance for Durable Medical Equipment.

You have been asked to pay 20% coinsurance for the oxygen concentrator and portable gaseous oxygen system rental. The oxygen concentrator and portable gaseous oxygen system rental falls within the Durable Medical Equipment benefit category. This means that you have been asked to pay the correct amount based on your contract with the Plan. This cost sharing is a contractual obligation you agreed to pay when you enrolled in the Plan. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to waive the coinsurance for the oxygen concentrator and portable gaseous oxygen system rental provided on January 27, 2021.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) services.

You asked the Plan to pre-approve the SNF services. You say that you have a 12-inch incision from perineum up to your breastbone. You say that you have preexisting screws in your back, a new knee, and live on the 2nd floor. You say that you cannot cook, wash, or clean dishes, and have not one to help you do anything. You say that your doctor suggested you go to rehab for more time to heal. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the records do not support the need for SNF care.

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 the SNF services. Our reviewer says that daily skilled services are not necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee received oral medications and insulin. The enrollee had stable vital signs and tolerated an oral diet. The enrollee received physical therapy in the acute hospital. The enrollee was at supervision to independent level with bed mobility and transfers and was at contact guard assist level of gait to 90 feet with a rolling walker. There are no identifiable skilled nursing service needs. There are identifiable skilled therapy service needs, but they are not required on a daily basis. The enrollee does not meet the 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 the SNF services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) 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 IRF car is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says rules for IRF care 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 that the patient was admitted to an acute care hospital. Medical conditions are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. The patient does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy
program. The patient does 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. In conclusion, 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: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve additional routine transportation trips.

You asked the Plan to pre-approve additional routine transportation trips. You say that these additional trips are
medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the benefit for routine transportation has
been exhausted at this time.

Medicare does not cover transport in a vehicle that is not an ambulance. However, the Plan offers a
transportation benefit that exceeds Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plan's coverage rules apply in this
case. The Plan covers a maximum of 12 one-way trips per year.

We looked at your request, the records in the case file, and the rules. Based on this information, we decided
that you have exhausted the Plan maximum benefit for coverage of routine transportation. Therefore, we
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve additional routine transportation trips.
Appeal type: Testing
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copay for the diagnostic colonoscopy provided on January 19, 2021.

You asked the Plan to waive the copay for the services provided. You say that the cost should have been paid in full. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the claim processed correctly.

The rules say a plan must disclose to its enrollees in clear, accurate terms all cost sharing information (such as co-payments, deductibles and coinsurance). Your contract with the Plan clearly says that you must pay a $125 copay in an ambulatory surgical center for outpatient surgery.

You have been asked to pay a $125 copay for the services provided. The services fall within the outpatient surgery benefit category. This means that you have been asked to pay the correct amount based on your contract with the Plan. This cost sharing is a contractual obligation you agreed to pay when you enrolled in the Plan. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copay for the diagnostic colonoscopy provided on January 19, 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 IRF care is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says rules for IRF care 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 that the patient has a past medical history of stroke and is living at home with complaints of weakness and difficulty with self-care. Medical conditions are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. The patient does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. The patient does 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 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 long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that LTACH care is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says rules for LTACH care have not been met.
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 there is no documentation provided necessitating admission to an LTACH. The enrollee is receiving appropriate care at the present acute care hospital. The enrollee does not require services at the LTACH that are not available at the acute care hospital where she is currently receiving care. There are no services available at the LTACH that the enrollee requires that are not available at the health care setting being offered by the health plan. The requested LTACH services are not medically necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee and able to be furnished safely and effectively only on an inpatient basis.
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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a shower chair.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a shower chair. You say that you need this item. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this is not a covered benefit.
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that shower chairs are not covered because they are not primarily medical in nature. While a shower chair may be appropriate in this case, neither the Plan nor Medicare offers coverage of this item. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a shower chair.