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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you would like reconsideration based on the records 
submitted. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the requirements for an IRF 
admission. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found that the complexity of the enrollees nursing, medical, and rehabilitation needs does 
not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The 
enrollee was admitted for lumbar compression fracture after a fall. The enrollees medical problems are stable 
and there are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. The enrollee does not require treatment by multiple 
therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy 
program. While the enrollee may have a need for physical therapy and/or occupational therapy, there is no 
documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different 
level of care. There is not a reasonable expectation that 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 an IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve F2 (prothrombin, coagulation factor II) (eg, hereditary 
hypercoagulability) gene analysis, 20210G>A variant (81240) and F5 (coagulation factor V) (eg, hereditary 
hypercoagulability) gene analysis, Leiden variant (81241). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve F2 gene analysis, 20210G>A variant and F5 gene analysis, Leiden variant. 
You say that this testing is medically necessary.The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this testing is not 
covered under Medicare. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. genetic testing for F2 and F5 genes for all risk factors, signs, symptoms, 
diseases, or conditions, including cardiovascular risk assessment, are non-covered except for pregnant parties. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of F2 gene analysis, 20210G>A variant and F5 gene analysis, Leiden variant have not been met. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve F2 (prothrombin, coagulation factor II) (eg, hereditary hypercoagulability) gene analysis, 20210G>A variant (81240) and F5 (coagulation factor V) (eg, 
hereditary hypercoagulability) gene analysis, Leiden variant (81241).
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for angiography, extremity, bilateral, radiological supervision 
and interpretation rendered on October 14, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. You say that this should be paid for. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says CPT 75716 is considered inclusive to CPT 37229. 
 
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 75716 is "Angiography, extremity, bilateral, radiological 
supervision and interpretation." 
 
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 a review of the operative report 
indicates that CPT 75716 was included in the billed procedure CPT 37229. As such, in this case the 
documentation does not support that CPT 75716 was a separate and distinct procedure from CPT 37229. In 
summary, there is insufficient documentation to support that CPT 75716 was a separate and distinct procedure from CPT 37229 in this patient's clinical management. 
 
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 angiography, extremity, bilateral, radiological supervision and interpretation rendered on 
October 14, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the services (99223) provided on November 29, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says payment is included in 
the global surgery payment. 
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that the Medicare approved amount for global 
surgery procedures includes payment for services related to the surgery when furnished by the physician who 
performs the surgery. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Payment for the requested services (99223) is included in the global 
surgery payment for the procedure (35840) provided on November 30, 2022, which has a 90-day global period. 
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 (99223) provided on November 29, 
2022.
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 is appropriate for IRF care. 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 that the complexity of the enrollees nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does 
not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. Medical 
problems are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. While the documentation does 
support a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for an intensive, multi-
disciplinary rehabilitation program. There is not a reasonable expectation that the enrollee will be able to fully 
participate in and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the pneumatic compression device (PCD) (E0675) and 
appliance (E0673) provided on May 13, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the PCD and appliance. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this is not 
covered for use outside the home. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules state that for equipment to be covered, it must be appropriate 
and needed for use inside the home.  
 
The item at issue in this appeal is for use outside of the home. Although this item may be helpful, neither 
Medicare nor the Plan covers equipment for use outside the home. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pay for the pneumatic compression device (PCD) (E0675) and appliance (E0673) provided on May 13, 
2022.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee needs physical therapy for her hip and 
left arm. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says based on Medicare guidelines and the information we 
have about your condition; you don't meet all of the requirements. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found that the complexity of your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not require 
an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. Medical problems are 
stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. While the documentation does support a need for 
physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for an intensive, multi-disciplinary 
rehabilitation program. 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 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 inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the services are medically necessary for the enrollee. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollees condition requires ongoing medical care in their 
current 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. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies. While the medical 
record supports a need for physical or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive 
rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different level of care. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Dexcom G6 Mis continuous glucose monitor (CGM) 
Transmit. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a Dexcom G6 CGM Transmit. You say that you disagree with the denial. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says a CGM is not covered under Medicare if the enrollee is not on 
insulin. 
 
 
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that therapeutic CGMs are considered medically 
reasonable and necessary for enrollees with diabetes who use insulin with at least three daily administrations, 
require frequent self-adjustment of insulin dosage based on the blood glucose testing results and have had an 
in-person visit with their treating physician to assess adherence to their CGM regimen and diabetes treatment 
plan. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The documentation indicates that the enrollee does not use insulin 
with at least three daily injections or require frequent self-adjustment of insulin dosage based on the blood 
glucose testing results. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of a Dexcom 
G6 CGM Transmit have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a 
Dexcom G6 Mis continuous glucose monitor (CGM) Transmit.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the additional moderate sedation time provided on date of 
service October 21, 2022, billed with code 99153. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 99153. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says code 99153 
is not payable in the facility setting. 
 
Medicare rules say that the OPPS recognizes that CPT code 99153 is a PE only code and that PE are not 
payable to the physician for services provided in the facility setting.   
We find that payment for CPT code 99153 is not supported. Specifically, there is no separate payment to the 
physician for CPT code 99153 when performed in the facility setting. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pay for the additional moderate sedation time provided on date of service October 21, 2022, billed 
with code 99153.
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve treatment with Remicade (J1745). 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve Remicade. You say that the requested drug is a medical necessity for the 
enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says step-therapy rules for coverage of the requested drug 
have not been met. 
 
Medicare covers Part B medications when they are reasonable and necessary but allows health plans to 
implement step therapy criteria. The Plan's contract indicates that it has implemented such criteria for certain 
Part B medications. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve Remicade. Our reviewer says that the 
requested drug is not medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found that the 
Plan requires a trial of drugs Inflectra or Avsola before they will approve the requested drug. In this case, the 
enrollee has not tried and failed the required drugs. There is no documentation provided indicating that the 
Plans required drugs would likely be less effective and/or likely have adverse effects for the enrollee. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Remicade have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve treatment with Remicade (J1745).
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for bronchoscopy (procedure code 31645) rendered on November 21, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. You say that this should be paid for. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says that the denied code is inclusive to another billed code. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules state that providers may bill services with a -59 modifier if the 
service billed with the modifier indicates a distinct procedural service.   
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pay for the services Our reviewer says that the 
services at issue in this case were supported by the medical records. Our physician reviewer found that the 
operative report describes a therapeutic bronchoscope was performed prior to open lung surgery. The operative 
report describes two separate procedures. 
 
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 services have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for 
bronchoscopy (procedure code 31645) rendered on November 21, 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a knee orthosis (L1833, L2397 and L2810) provided on 
November 23, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for a knee orthosis. You say that this claim should be paid. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the documentation submitted did not sufficiently support the billed supply code, and 
there is evidence of misrepresented services. 
 
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 pay for a knee orthosis. Our reviewer says that the 
requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found that the clinical documentation provided does not support the need for a knee orthosis. The 
enrollee has a medical history of hip arthroplasty due to osteoarthritis. The enrollee was evaluated for bilateral 
hip pain and physical therapy was prescribed. There is a lack of clinical history regarding the enrollees knee 
pain and osteoarthritis and level of mobility. There are also limited physical examination findings indicating 
knee instability or the severity of his osteoarthritis. 
 
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 knee orthosis have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pay for a knee orthosis (L1833, L2397 and L2810) provided on November 23, 2022.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the pneumatic compression device (PCD) (E0675) and 
appliance (E0673) provided on September 28, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the PCD and appliance. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this is not 
covered for use outside the home. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules state that for equipment to be covered, it must be appropriate 
and needed for use inside the home.  
 
The item at issue in this appeal is for use outside of the home. Although this item may be helpful, neither 
Medicare nor the Plan covers equipment for use outside the home. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pay for the pneumatic compression device (PCD) (E0675) and appliance (E0673) provided on 
September 28, 2022.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for home health services provided from September 4, 2020, to 
September 14, 2020. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for the home health services. You say that your organization was not advised of any 
procedure changes for claims submission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the NOA was not 
received timely. As such, this final claim was correctly denied. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that an NOA must be submitted within 5 days of the start of 
care date for home health services. NOAs which are received more than 30 days from the timely filing date 
result in no payment being made for the episode of care.  
 
In this case, the start of care date is September 4, 2020. The NOA was not received by the Plan until May 5, 
2021. As more than 30 days passed between the timely filing date and the NOA receipt, no payment can be 
made on this claim. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for home health services provided 
from September 4, 2020, to September 14, 2020.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve a home ventilator. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the ventilator. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says that this device to assist with breathing does not meet the requirements for 
approval. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that ventilators may be covered when they are medically 
necessary for patients who have neuromuscular disease, thoracic restrictive diseases, and chronic respiratory 
failure due to COPD. 
 
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 ventilator. Our reviewer says that 
the requested ventilator is medically reasonable and necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee 
has chronic respiratory failure consequent to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The documentation 
supports that the enrollee has been considered for, or failed treatment with, positive airway pressure. The 
enrollee has abnormal results on a blood test that measures carbon dioxide and oxygen levels (arterial blood 
gas: PaO2 of less than or equal to 60 mm Hg and/or PaCO2 greater than or equal to 45 mm Hg). 
 
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 ventilator have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-
approve a home ventilator.  
 
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.