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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 87634 billed for date of service October 12, 
2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 87634. You say that this service is supported as billed. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says payment for code 87634 is bundled into payment for code 87631. 
 
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 87631. 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 87634 billed for date of service October 12, 
2021.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a complete upper denture (D5110). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the dental services. You say that you need to get the procedure approved so 
the dentist can finish it. 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 the date of service of January 20, 2020. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a complete upper denture (D5110).
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a partial maxillary denture (D5213). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a partial denture. You say that you disagree with the denial of dental 
services. 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 May 14, 2020. Therefore, 
we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a partial maxillary denture (D5213).
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 do not agree that care from a skilled nursing 
facility would help you at all with your recovery. You say that you find it very difficult to be mobile and think 
being at an IRF would be best. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an IRF admission is not medically 
necessary, and you can receive the care you need in another 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 that you do not meet criteria for admission to an acute inpatient rehabilitation facility. 
The complexity of your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not require an acute rehab hospital 
inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. You can receive further services at a 
lower 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: 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 will require daily medical management 
as well as inpatient acute therapy to address their medical issues. You say that the enrollee can tolerate more 
intensive therapy. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an IRF admission is not medically necessary, 
and the enrollee can safely receive the services they need in other settings. 
 
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 enrollees 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 acute IRF admission and services.
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 you need continued therapy so that you can return 
home. You say you are still weak and need help with ambulation. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 
the continued SNF care is not medically necessary. 
 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 that based on the medical records provided there is no documentation that you 
require skilled nursing services, i.e., the specialized skill, knowledge and judgment of a skilled professional 
nurse are not required to safely and effectively provide medically necessary and reasonable treatment. Records 
do not document the need for intravenous medications, new tube feeding, or ostomy care or daily complex 
wound care or respiratory care. Based on the medical records provided you require skilled therapy services, i.e., 
the specialized skill, knowledge and judgment of a qualified therapist are required to safely and effectively 
provide medically necessary and reasonable treatment. Based on the medical records provided there is no 
documentation that further daily skilled services are required. You are walking household distances with a 
rolling walker with contact guard to minimum assistance and is contact guard to minimum assist for 
transfers. The provided records do not document a significant decline in your functional status to necessitate 
further daily inpatient skilled therapy services. Based on the medical records provided there is no 
documentation that you require the services on an inpatient basis, only in a skilled nursing facility setting. 
Records do not support that the services in the home with home health care or in a long-term care facility on a 
part time basis are not appropriate in this case. 
 
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: 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 services are urgently needed to be approved. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says based on Medicare guidelines the IRF 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 enrollee's 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 a surgical repair of a hip fracture. Medical problems are stable. There are no 
complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. The enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies, 
including either physical 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. 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an extremity brace (L1686, L2624) provided to the enrollee 
on May 31, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the brace. You say that this was medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the documentation does not sufficiently support the billed supply codes. 
 
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 the brace. Our reviewer says that the 
requested services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer 
found that in this case, the requested device has not been shown to be superior to other standard treatments for 
the enrollee's medical condition. There is no indications that the extremity brace improves an individuals 
function or general health. The requested device was not medically necessary.  
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the brace have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pay for an extremity brace (L1686, L2624) provided to the enrollee on May 31, 2022.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that LTACH care is medically necessary for 
the enrollee's condition. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says rules for LTACH care have not been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that LTACH services are covered if they are medically 
necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the LTACH services. Our reviewer says 
that the requested LTACH care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found that the enrollee does not require services at the LTACH that are not available at the 
acute care hospital where they are currently receiving care. All medically necessary care is being provided in 
the current acute care setting. In this case, 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 Plan. The 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 long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for injection services (procedure code 64405) provided to the 
enrollee on March 9, 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 the records support one unit of 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.  
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 per the guidelines "This code has 
a bilateral payment indicator of 1, which means it is already valued at 150%, already considered to be 
bilateral."  Therefore, an additional unit of service cannot be verified.  
 
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 injection services (procedure code 64405) provided to the enrollee on March 9, 2022.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a home ventilator. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the ventilator. You say that without the home ventilator and oxygen 
concentrator, the patient will continue to experience hypercapnic and hypoxic respiratory failure which will 
result in great harm to the patient and possible need for hospitalization. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says the records do not show failure of another device treating breathing issues. 
 
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 not medically reasonable or necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the 
enrollee has a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but there are no pulmonary 
function tests to assess severity, the patient is on no controller medications, and is using rescue medications rarely. So, the COPD may not be severe. A diagnosis of thoracic restrictive disorder is listed, but there is no 
evidence to support this on physical examination, pulmonary function tests, or imaging. There is no generalized 
neuromuscular disease. Although overnight capnography suggests possible hypoventilation, this is not 
confirmed with arterial blood gas (ABG) study. If the patient does have chronic CO2 retention, may benefit 
from BiPAP during sleep, which can provide AVAPS if needed for severe COPD. Medicare does not cover a 
home ventilator when used as BiPAP. 
 
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 not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a home ventilator.
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. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says based on Medicare 
guidelines and the information we have about the enrollee's condition they do not meet all 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 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. The enrollee 
was admitted for surgical repair of a femur fracture. Medical problems are stable.  There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. The enrollee does not require treatment by multiple 
therapies, including either physical 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. 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: Outpatient Mental Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve TMS (CPT code 90867, 90868 x 35). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the services. You say that the services are necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the services are not 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 services. Our physician reviewer 
found this enrollee does not meet the clinical criteria for the use of TMS therapy utilizing LCD (L34641) as 
they do not meet the criteria as this enrollee has not shown a 50% improvement in the standard rating scales. 
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 not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve TMS (CPT code 90867, 90868 x 35).
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 based on IRF criteria. 
 
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 continues to have a need for skilled therapy with ongoing safety 
concerns and a potential for functional improvement however, the documentation does not support that they 
would meet criteria for admission to an acute IRF. There is no indication that the enrollee would require skilled 
rehabilitation in an IRF, participating in rehabilitation services 15 hours a week, under the supervision of a 
physician with at least 3 visits weekly to regain or maintain the enrollee's functional status. The enrollee can receive further services at a lower 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.