Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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 requested admission to a LTACH is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested admission to a LTACH is 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 admission to a LTACH is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee was admitted with sepsis and acute kidney injury from osteomyelitis. The enrollee is receiving wound care and intravenous antibiotics. The enrollee continues to receive acute care services, and these have not been denied. The medical record does not indicate that the enrollee requires services that he is not currently receiving but that would be available at the LTACH facility. The elements of the coverage rules are not satisfied. The requested service cannot be recommended.
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the extraction (D7140) provided on February 22, 2021.
You asked the Plan to pay for the extraction. You say that page 4-76 of the EOC states the criteria for this dental claim has been met The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this service is not a covered benefit under your dental plan. The Plan also says that you were not enrolled in the dental rider at the time of this service.
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 extraction (D7140) provided on February 22, 2021.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a pharmacogenomic panel (81227, 81230, 81231, 81240, 81241, 81291, 81328, 81355, 81479) provided on December 29, 2020.
You asked the Plan to pay for a pharmacogenomic panel. You say that the laboratory should not be penalized for being out-of-network. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this testing was not billed correctly.
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. Providers must report services with the appropriate CPT code. If a laboratory assays two or more genes in a patient in parallel, then those two or more genes will be considered part of the same panel. A panel constitutes a single procedural service, so one code must be submitted for the panel. We find that CPT codes 81227, 81230, 81231, 81240, 81241, 81291, 81328, 81355, and 81479 are not supported in the medical record. Specifically, the record shows that the genetic testing at issue was done as a panel and should be reported with a single code. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of a pharmacogenomic panel have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a pharmacogenomic panel (81227, 81230, 81231, 81240, 81241, 81291, 81328, 81355, 81479) provided on December 29, 2020.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for surgical assistant services (49650) provided December 2, 2020.
You asked the Plan to pay for the surgical assistant services. You say that the services were medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this provider is not eligible for surgical assistant payment.
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare only pays for assistant surgery services when the procedure is covered for an assistant and the person who assists the surgery bears the designation of a physician, PA, NP, or CNS.
In this case, the record does not show that the provider of the surgical assistant service is a physician, PA, NP, or CNS. Medicare only makes payment for surgical assistant services when provided by one of these types of practitioners. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for surgical assistant services (49650) provided December 2, 2020.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a continuous glucose monitor.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the continuous glucose monitor. You say that the continuous glucose monitor is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says coverage criteria has not been met.
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that therapeutic CGMs are considered medically reasonable and necessary for enrollees with diabetes who perform blood glucose testing at least four times per day, use insulin with at least three daily injections, and require frequent self-adjustment of insulin dosage based on the blood glucose testing results.
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The documentation indicates that the enrollee does not use insulin with at least three daily injections. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the continuous glucose monitor have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a continuous glucose monitor.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for skilled nursing services provided on November 19, 2020 by an out of network (OON) provider.
You asked the Plan to pay for skilled nursing services. You say that you would like this claim reprocessed and paid. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says prior authorization was not obtained by the member's primary care physician. The Plan says that the rendering facility is out-of-network.
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 skilled nursing services provided on November 19, 2020 by an out of network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve admission to a long term acute care hospital (LTACH) for the enrollee.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services could be provided in another setting, such as an acute rehab facility, skilled nursing facility, nursing facility, outpatient setting, or home care.
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 a 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 admission to a long term acute care hospital (LTACH) for the enrollee.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Freestyle Libre continuous glucose monitor (CGM).
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the CGM. You say that the enrollee needs to check her blood sugar at least four times per day and is not able to do finger sticks this many times. She is not able to do her daily living activities when her fingers are bruised, callused, and bleeding. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says it was confirmed that the enrollee only uses on insulin injection per day. Criteria for the CGM are not met.
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that therapeutic CGMs are considered medically reasonable and necessary for enrollees with diabetes who perform blood glucose testing at least four times per day, use insulin with at least three daily injections, and require frequent self-adjustment of insulin dosage based on the blood glucose testing results. We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The documentation indicates that the enrollee does not use insulin with at least three daily injections. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of
the CGM have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Freestyle Libre continuous glucose monitor (CGM).
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a CardioMEMS HF system.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a CardioMEMS HF system. You say that the requested CardioMEMS HF system is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested CardioMEMS HF system is not medically necessary.
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 a CardioMEMS HF system. Our reviewer says that the requested CardioMEMS HF system is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has WHO Group 3 pulmonary hypertension. The record does not indicate that the enrollee has NYHA class III heart failure and can walk between 1-1.5 miles. The elements of the coverage criteria are not satisfied. The requested service is not recommended. We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of a CardioMEMS HF system have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a CardioMEMS HF system.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve IRF admission and services.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the IRF services are medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says based on Medicare guidelines; 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 that based on the documentation provided, the health Plan's denial should be upheld. The enrollee does not require the intensity of services provided at an IRF. Specifically, the enrollee is not shown to require fifteen hours per week of rehabilitative services and regular physician evaluation. The
enrollee's care needs can be met at a lower level of care (ex. skilled nursing facility/subacute rehab). 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 IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approvea comprehensive oral evaluation (D0150), and an extraction (D7210).You asked the Plan to pre-approvecomprehensive oral evaluation, and an extraction. You say that your tooth is broken, and it needs to be extracted by an oral surgeon.The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services at issue are not covered unless they are performed by a participating general dentist. Dental services performed by an oral surgeon are not covered.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. We looked at the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that the Plan's rules for coverage of comprehensive oral evaluation, and an extraction have not been met. Specifically, the services at issue are not covered unless they are performed by a participating general dentist.Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approvea comprehensive oral evaluation (D0150), and an extraction (D7210).
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 left sided burns and had skin grafting to treat these burns. 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: 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 requested admission to a LTACH is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested admission to a LTACH is 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 admission to a LTACH is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee was admitted with a small bowel obstruction and acute kidney injury. The enrollee continues to receive acute care services, and these have not been denied. The medical record does not indicate that the enrollee requires services that she is not currently receiving but that would be available at the LTACH facility. The elements of the coverage rules are not satisfied. The requested service cannot be recommended.
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services.
Appeal type: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to provide coverage for 50 additional routine transportation trips.
You asked the Plan to provide coverage for 50 additional routine transportation trips. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you have exceeded your benefit limit.
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 48 one-way trips per year.
We looked at your request, the records in the case file, and the rules. The file shows that you have used the maximum of 48 routine transportation trips. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to provide coverage for 50 additional routine transportation trips.
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 for the enrollee.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that without rehab the the patient will have limited ability to regain his maximum function. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the enrollee's ongoing skilled therapy and nursing needs can be provided at a lower level of care.
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 enrollee does not require the intensity of services provided at an IRF. Specifically, the enrollee is not shown to require fifteen hours per week of rehabilitative services and regular physician evaluation. The enrollee's care needs can be met at a lower level of care. Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee's 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 for the enrollee.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for moderate sedation services (99152) provided November 22, 2020.

You asked the Plan to pay for the sedation services. You say that the medical records provided support the necessity of the services in dispute. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the records do not support the billed service.

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 99152 is moderate sedation services provided by the same physician or other qualified health care professional performing the diagnostic or therapeutic service that the sedation supports, requiring the presence of an independent trained observer to assist in the monitoring of the patient's level of consciousness and physiological status; initial 15 minutes of intra service time, patient age 5 years or older

We find that CPT code 99152 is not supported in the medical record. Specifically, the records submitted did not indicate the presence of an independent trained observer to assist in the monitoring of the patient's level of consciousness and physiological status Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the sedation services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for moderate sedation services (99152) provided November 22, 2020.
Appeal type: Testing
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an in-facility sleep study.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve these 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. Medicare rules say that a sleep study is covered when specific criteria are met. 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 these services. Our reviewer says that the services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has a sleep disturbance secondary to obstructive sleep apnea. The record does not indicate a medical rationale why the study must be performed in-center. The records do not support that the requested in-facility sleep study is reasonable or medically necessary for the enrollee at this time. We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of these services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an in-facility sleep study.