Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve use of a ventilator. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve ventilator. You say that you need this to maintain oxygen levels at home. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says a ventilator is not covered by Medicare for this purpose. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that ventilator products used to provide continuous or 
bilevel positive airway pressure (CPAP or BiPAP) therapy, regardless of the underlying medical condition, 
shall not be covered.  
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. A ventilator is not covered by Medicare for this purpose. Based on 
this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve use of a ventilator.
Appeal type: 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 has a new acute medical condition that 
has resulted in a significant decrease in functional ability and is unable to adequately recover in a less intensive 
setting. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the member does not meet criteria for inpatient 
rehabilitation. 
 
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 enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either 
physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While the medical 
record supports a need for physical or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive 
rehabilitation services. 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. 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: 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 you are requesting reconsideration for an IRF 
admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says based on Medicare guidelines, the IRF services 
requested do not meet the requirements for approval. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is 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 do not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. 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: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 75710 billed for date of service June 2, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 75710. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says payment for 
code 75710 is bundled into payment for code 37243. 
 
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, we have confirmed that code 75710 is a column II code to column I code 37243. This claim has not been billed with an appropriate modifier to 
bypass the edit. Based on the claim submitted, Medicare billing criteria have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 75710 billed for date of service June 2, 2022.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that LTACH services are medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet Medicare guidelines for 
LTACH 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 that 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 health plan has approved ongoing 
care in the current acute care setting. 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 LTACH services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve intradialytic parenteral nutrition (IDPN). 
 
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 IDPN 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 end-stage renal disease 
on hemodialysis with poor appetite and hypoalbuminemia. The provided records do not document that the 
enrollee has a condition involving the small intestine and/or its exocrine glands which significantly impairs the 
absorption of nutrients or a disease of the stomach and/or intestine which is a motility disorder and impairs the 
ability of nutrients to be transported through and absorbed by the gastrointestinal system as required by the 
Medicare criteria. The services are therefore not reasonable or medically necessary 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 intradialytic parenteral nutrition (IDPN).
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that the services requested are medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the criteria for approval have not been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for care in a SNF when the four factors 
listed in the Medicare rules section are met. Custodial care is not covered.  
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve SNF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested SNF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found you do not have daily skilled nursing needs that require the specialized skill, 
knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional nurse. You do not have daily skilled therapy needs that 
require the specialized skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional therapist. You do not require 
daily skilled nursing and/or skilled therapy on an inpatient basis in a skilled nursing facility (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 skilled nursing facility (SNF) care.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve use of a ventilator. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve ventilator. You say that the enrollee cannot use a bilevel positive airway 
pressure (BiPAP) device. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says a ventilator is not covered by Medicare 
for this purpose and the enrollee's needs could be met by a BiPAP instead. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that ventilator products used to provide continuous or 
bilevel positive airway pressure (CPAP or BiPAP) therapy, regardless of the underlying medical condition, 
shall not be covered.  
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. A ventilator is not covered by Medicare for this purpose. Based on 
this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve use of a ventilator.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a repeat Zilretta injection. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the injection. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the efficacy and safety of repeat administration of Zilretta has not been established. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for a drug or biological only if it is safe 
and effective and otherwise reasonable and 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 injection. Our reviewer says that the 
requested injection is not medically reasonable or necessary. Our physician reviewer found that as stated in the 
manufacturer's labeling: "The efficacy and safety of repeat administration of Zilretta have not been 
demonstrated." 
 
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 injection have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a repeat Zilretta injection.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve treatment with Imfinzi (J9173). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Imfinzi. You say that the requested drug is a medical necessity for the 
enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested drug has been prescribed for an off-label, 
not medically accepted use. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare may pay for unlabeled uses for anti-cancer 
drugs if they are medically accepted as safe and effective or appropriate for the particular use.  
 
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 Imfinzi. Our reviewer says that the 
requested drug is not medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found that the 
requested use of Imfinzi is not FDA-approved for the enrollees diagnosis. The use is not supported by one of 
the major drug compendia or by clinical research that appears in a Medicare-approved medical journal. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of Imfinzi have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pre-approve treatment with Imfinzi (J9173).
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the services (99205) provided on June 23, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this should not be 
billed as a new patient visit. 
 
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 99205 is "Office or other outpatient visit for the 
evaluation and management of a new patient, which requires a medically appropriate history and/or 
examination and high level of medical decision making. When using time for code selection, 60-74 minutes of 
total time is spent on the date of the encounter".  
We find that CPT code 99205 is not supported in the medical record. Specifically, the records show that the 
enrollee was seen by the same provider on April 6, 2022. As such, the visit in question would not be considered 
a new patient visit. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the services have 
not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the services (99205) provided on 
June 23, 2022.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the electrical stimulator supplies billed with code A4595 for 
July 7, 2022. 
 
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 there is no valid proof of delivery. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that all DMEPOS 
suppliers are required to maintain proof of delivery. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. There is no valid proof of delivery in the documentation. 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 pay for the electrical stimulator supplies billed with code A4595 for 
July 7, 2022.
Appeal type: Testing
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for the services (76641-LT, 76641-RT) provided on November 4, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the MUE has been 
exceeded. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare health plans must make reasonable and 
diligent efforts to gather and forward to the IRE information regarding its decision to deny coverage or 
payment. 
 
The Plan has not made reasonable and diligent efforts to gather and forward to us information regarding their 
decision to deny your request. The Plan argues that code 76641 has an MUE of 1, however, a CPT code search 
reveals that code 76641 has an MUE value of 2. Additionally, Medicare rules say that a bilateral diagnostic 
procedure may be reported with 1 unit of service with modifier RT on 1 claim line plus 1 unit of service 
and modifier LT on a second claim line, as was done in this case. Without supporting documentation, the Plan's 
denial cannot be substantiated. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for the services (76641-LT, 
76641-RT) provided on November 4, 2022.  
 
If the Plan does not agree with our decision, they can ask us to open a case again. We only open a case again 
if we believe there was a mistake or if there is new information to review. The Plan has to show us the mistake 
and/or send us the new information. This does not happen often. If we decide to open the case again, we will 
send you a letter.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: 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 your mental health has declined, and you need IRF 
services as soon as possible. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request 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 your 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 IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for skilled nursing facility (SNF) services provided to the 
enrollee from June 22, 2021, to June 30, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. You say that this was medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the provider has reported skilled services with the incorrect PDPM Health Insurance 
Prospective Payment System (HIPPS) Score. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
 
We asked our coder to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to determine if the 
Plan was correct in denying the request to pay for the services. Our reviewer says that the services at issue in 
this case were not supported by the medical records. Our reviewer found that there is no evidence that the 
enrollee received parenteral/IV feeding from 6/20/21-6/26/2021. The enrollee appears to have had a hep-locked 
IV. The enrollee appears to have been taking oral medications and an oral diet. 
 
We looked at this coder's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pay for skilled nursing facility (SNF) services provided to the enrollee from June 22, 2021, to June 30, 
2021.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for lab services provided on August 19, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the lab services. You say that these services are supported in the medical record. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you billed with an incorrect place of service on the claim. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that, for lab services, the POS code must reflect the 
location in which the sample was taken. POS code 81 is used to describe samples taken by the laboratory 
directly. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of the lab services have not been met. Specifically, this claim was billed with the laboratory POS code. The records do not support that the sample was taken in a laboratory setting. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pay for lab services provided on August 19, 2022.
Appeal type: Testing
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for the services (76641-LT, 76641-RT) provided on August 4, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the MUE has been 
exceeded. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare health plans must make reasonable and 
diligent efforts to gather and forward to the IRE information regarding its decision to deny coverage or 
payment. 
 
The Plan has not made reasonable and diligent efforts to gather and forward to us information regarding their 
decision to deny your request. The Plan argues that code 76641 has an MUE of 1, however, a CPT code search 
reveals that code 76641 has an MUE value of 2. Additionally, Medicare rules say that a bilateral diagnostic 
procedure may be reported with 1 unit of service with modifier RT on 1 claim line plus 1 unit of service 
and modifier LT on a second claim line, as was done in this case. Without supporting documentation, the Plan's 
denial cannot be substantiated. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for the services (76641-LT, 
76641-RT) provided on August 4, 2022.  
 
If the Plan does not agree with our decision, they can ask us to open a case again. We only open a case again 
if we believe there was a mistake or if there is new information to review. The Plan has to show us the mistake 
and/or send us the new information. This does not happen often. If we decide to open the case again, we will 
send you a letter.