Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 70450 billed for date of service October 16, 
2022. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 70450. You say that the patient had multiple exams on this date 
of service. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says payment for code 70450 is bundled into payment for 
code 70496. 
 
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 70450 
is a column II code to column I code 70496. 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 70450 billed for date of service October 16, 
2022.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Freestyle Libre continuous glucose monitor (CGM) kit 
and sensor. 
 
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 criteria for coverage 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 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 require 
frequent daily adjustments of insulin based on blood glucose testing. 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 a Freestyle Libre continuous glucose monitor (CGM) kit and sensor.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the dental services on October 12, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the dental services. You say that you would like to request reconsideration of the 
denied claim. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says your benefit for the requested item or service has 
already been exhausted. 
 
Medicare generally does not cover dental services. However, the Plan offers a dental benefit that exceeds 
Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plans coverage rules apply in this case. 
 
Though the Plan offers a dental benefit in excess of Medicare coverage, certain limitations apply. The record 
shows your benefit for the requested item or service was exhausted on date of service March 23, 2022, and 
June 13, 2022. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the dental services on October 12, 
2022.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the laboratory services related to end-stage renal disease 
(ESRD) provided on May 9, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the ESRD-related laboratory services. You say that your organization does not 
have a contract with the dialysis facility for payment of these lab services. 
 The Plan denied your request. The Plan says Medicare does not separately pay for ESRD-related laboratory 
testing. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules state that routine ESRD laboratory services are not 
separately payable. Laboratories should bill the facility directly for laboratory services as they are considered 
part of the composite rate. No other payment for these services is allowed. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pay for the laboratory services related to end-stage renal disease (ESRD) provided on May 9, 
2022.
Appeal type: Testing
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 76642 billed for date of service October 25, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 76642. You say that the patient had multiple exams on this date 
of service. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the number of units billed exceeds the maximum 
allowed. 
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that claims submitted where the unit of service 
exceeds the MUE value for the HCPCS/CPT code will be denied. 
 
In this case, the MUE for CPT code 76642 is 1. The MAI value for this code is 2. You billed 2 units of this 
code, exceeding the MUE. Specifically, you billed one line item of this code with the LT modifier and one line 
item of this code with the RT modifier instead of billing one line item with the bilateral modifier as is required. 
Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of procedure code 76642 have not been 
met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 76642 billed for date of 
service October 25, 2022.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Euflexxa. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Euflexxa. You say that you disagree with the Plan's denial. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the requested drug does not meet step therapy criteria. 
 
 
 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 Euflexxa. Our reviewer says that the 
documentation does not support that the requested drug meets step therapy criteria. Our physician reviewer 
found the enrollee has osteoarthritis of the knees. The documentation does not support that the enrollee has 
tried and failed Orthovisc, Synvisc, Synvisc One. The documentation does not support that Orthovisc, Synvisc, 
Synvisc One would likely be less effective and/or likely have adverse effects for the enrollee. Therefore, the 
enrollee does not meet criteria for the requested drug. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Euflexxa have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Euflexxa.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 0239U billed for date of service April 18, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 0239U. You say that you would like the Plan to reconsider their 
denial of payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says payment for code 0239U is bundled into 
payment for code 0037U. 
 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 0239U 
is a column II code to column I code 0037U. 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 0239U billed for date of service April 18, 2022.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 86077 billed for date of service August 18, 
2022, to August 21, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 86077. You say that you would like the Plan to reconsider their 
denial of payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the number of units billed exceeds the 
maximum allowed.  
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that claims submitted where the unit of service 
exceeds the MUE value cannot be paid when the MAI value is 2.  
 
In this case, the MUE for CPT code 86077 is 1. The MAI value for this code is 2. You billed 2 units of this 
code on each date of service, exceeding the MUE. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules 
for coverage of procedure code 86077 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pay for procedure code 86077 billed for date of service August 18, 2022, to August 21, 2022.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure codes 87634, 87632, 87633, 0115U, 0202U, 
0223U, and 0225U billed for date of service May 28, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure codes 87634, 87632, 87633, 0115U, 0202U, 0223U, and 0225U. You 
say that you would like the Plan to reconsider their denial of payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says payment for code 87634 is bundled into payment for code 87632. Furthermore, panel testing should be 
billed using one CPT code on the claim. 
 
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 87634 
is a column II code to column I code 87632. This claim has not been billed with an appropriate modifier to 
bypass the edit.  
 
The rules also say that if one laboratory procedure evaluates multiple genes using a next generation sequencing 
(NGS) procedure, the laboratory shall report only one unit of service of one genomic sequencing procedure, 
molecular multianalyte assay, multianalyte assay with algorithmic analysis, or proprietary laboratory analysis 
code. This was an NGS panel that was not billed with a single panel code as required.  
 
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 codes 87634, 87632, 87633, 0115U, 0202U, 0223U, and 0225U billed for 
date of service May 28, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
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 services are necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says medical necessity has not been established. Therefore, coverage 
criteria have not been met. 
 
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 items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this 
case. Our physician reviewer found there remains a dearth of randomized, blinded clinical studies examining 
long-term clinical outcomes establishing the value of CardioMEMS in patient management. As a result, at this 
time the CardioMEMS system would not be considered medically appropriate and necessary in this enrollees 
clinical management. 
 
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 acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee meets the admission criteria. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the IRF care is not medically necessary, and the enrollee's needs can be met 
at a lower level of care such as a skilled nursing facility, home with home health services, or home with 
outpatient therapy. 
 
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 was admitted for surgical repair of a hip fracture after a fall. The 
enrollee's 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 medical record supports a need for physical and/or 
occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. 
 
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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Intracept intraosseous basivertebral nerve ablation at 
L3, L4, and L5 (Intracept procedure) 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Intracept procedure. You say that you disagree with the Plan's denial. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested services are 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 Intracept procedure. Our reviewer says 
that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee was being treated for vertebrogenic low back pain. The enrollee 
presented with chronic low back pain. The exam reveals an antalgic gait. There is pain on flexion and rotation 
with limited motion to flexion. Strength, sensation, and reflexes are intact. The magnetic resonance imaging 
(MRI) did not corroborate Modic changes at the requested procedure levels. Additionally, there are multiple 
plausible pathologic sources of significant pain generation. The chronic back pain, the noted pain-aggravating 
factors (laying down, walking, and standing for prolonged periods), pain-relieving factors (heat and sitting in recliner), pain on flexion and rotation with limited motion to flexion, and intact neurologic exam are all non-
specific to any pathologic entities. Overall, the documentation is lacking regarding reasonably detailed and/or 
evidenced findings supportive of the spinal vertebral bodies as being the overwhelming primary generators of 
the enrollees chronic persistent pain. Therefore, the enrollee does not meet criteria for the requested services. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Intracept procedure have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve Intracept intraosseous basivertebral nerve ablation at L3, L4, and L5 (Intracept 
procedure)
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 enrollee is being treated for rectal cancer and due 
to the medical complexity and risk for complications there is a need for the enrollee to be managed closely. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says based on Medicare guidelines the inpatient rehabilitation facility 
services you are requesting 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 enrollees nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The enrollee 
was admitted for respiratory failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, exacerbation, and metabolic 
encephalopathy and was discharged to skilled nursing on February 2 2023. Medical problems are stable. There 
are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. While the medical records support a need for physical 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 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 IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Testing
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 76641 billed for date of service October 28, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 76641. You say that the patient had multiple exams on this date 
of service. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the number of units billed exceeds the maximum 
allowed.  
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that claims submitted where the unit of service 
exceeds the MUE value for the HCPCS/CPT code will be denied. 
 
In this case, the MUE for CPT code 76641 is 1. The MAI value for this code is 2. You billed 2 units of this 
code, exceeding the MUE. Specifically, you billed one line item of this code with the LT modifier and one line 
item of this code with the RT modifier instead of billing one line item with the bilateral modifier as is required. 
Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of procedure code 76641 have not been 
met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 76641 billed for date of 
service October 28, 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 acute inpatient rehab is the most appropriate setting 
for the enrollee to reach their maximum rehab potential under the direct care and supervision of our skilled 
rehab team. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services the enrollee needs can be provided safely 
in another setting such as a skilled nursing facility, home with home health services or home with outpatient 
therapy. 
 
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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve pacemaker implantation. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve pacemaker implantation. You say that you disagree with the Plan's denial. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested services are 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 pacemaker implantation. Our reviewer 
says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found you have bradycardia. There is no evidence of high-grade, second or third degree 
Atrioventricular (AV) block, nor documentation of symptomatic bradycardia. As such, there is insufficient 
documentation to support the medical necessity for insertion of a pacemaker in your clinical management. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of pacemaker implantation have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve pacemaker implantation.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve placement of an implantable loop recorder (ILR). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve placement of an ILR. You say that the services are necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says based on the documentation provided, coverage criteria has not been met. 
 The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that cardiac event monitors are 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 placement of an ILR. Our reviewer says 
that the services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found there is no documentation provided 
to suggest a history of unexplained syncope or any other apparent indication for an ILR. In summary, there is 
insufficient documentation to support the medical necessity for insertion of an ILR in this enrollee's clinical 
management. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of placement of an ILR have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve placement of an implantable loop recorder (ILR).