Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an epidural steroid injection. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve these services. You say that you do not wish to receive contrast as you feel 
the unnecessary risk of side effects is not worth it. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that this cannot 
be covered without contrast to guide the needle. 
 
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 these services. Our reviewer says that 
the requested services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. The standard of care 
has been clearly defined as requiring the use of contrast dye. Hundreds of patients have been injured by the 
misplacement of steroids into the blood stream. The use of contrast dye minimizes this risk. Performance of 
this procedure utilizing a CT scan does not eliminate the risk. Our physician reviewer found that your condition 
does not meet criteria for coverage of these 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 these services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve an epidural steroid injection.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the lab services provided on March 28, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services provided. You say that the diagnosis code is listed as covered for 
CPT 87631. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there is a more appropriate code to describe the 
services. 
 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 87631 is infectious agent detection by nucleic acid (DNA 
or RNA); respiratory virus (e.g., adenovirus, influenza virus, coronavirus, metapneumovirus, parainfluenza 
virus, respiratory syncytial virus, rhinovirus), includes multiplex reverse transcription, when performed, and 
multiplex amplified probe technique, multiple types or subtypes, 3-5 targets. 
 
We find that CPT code 87631 is not supported in the medical record. Specifically, the respiratory pathogen 
panel included more than 5 targets. Multiplex respiratory viral panels of 6 or more pathogens are non-covered. 
Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the services provided have not been 
met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the lab services provided on March 28, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve surgical consultation and treatment to be provided by an 
out-of-network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve outpatient treatment. You say that the enrollee needs corrective surgery. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the denial of authorization for this service is correct, because this 
provider is out-of-network with the Plan and the enrollee can be treated within the Plan network. 
 
Medicare rules say that plans can require enrollees to get care from network providers. The contract with the 
Plan says that the Plan has to pre-approve care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving 
emergencies, out of area urgent care and care that cannot be provided by network providers. 
 
The requested provider in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan has network providers 
available who can provide the items/services at issue in this appeal. We found no exception that would require 
the Plan to pre-approve these items/services. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve 
surgical consultation and treatment to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the crutch substitute device (E0118). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the crutch substitute device. You say that this device is medically necessary 
for the enrollee's condition. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this device is not covered by Medicare 
or the Plan. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that there is insufficient published clinical literature 
demonstrating safety and effectiveness in the Medicare population to establish the medical necessity for the 
crutch substitute. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the crutch 
substitute device have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the 
crutch substitute device (E0118).
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the requested admission to a LTACH is 
medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested admission to a LTACH does 
not meet criteria. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that LTACH services are covered if they are medically 
necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the LTACH services. Our reviewer says 
that the requested LTACH care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found there 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 long term acute care hospital (LTACH) 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 without rehabilitation services the enrollee's ability 
to regain maximal function is jeopardized due to the severity of conditions and medical diagnosis. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says according to the enrollee's available records, the enrollee does not meet all 
the required Medicare criteria for admission to an inpatient rehabilitation facility. 
 
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 hip and shoulder fractures after a fall. 
Medical problems are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. While the enrollee has a 
need for physical or occupational therapy, there is no documentation of a need for an intensive rehabilitation 
program. 
 
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 the IRF admission and services.
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 further care is needed to improve your condition. 
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 you were admitted for a surgical repair of a peri-prosthetic hip fracture. Medical 
problems are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. While you have a need for physical 
or occupational therapy, there is no documentation of a need for an intensive rehabilitation program. 
 
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: 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 requested are medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the inpatient rehabilitation facility (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 patient's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The patient was 
admitted for sacral, pelvic, and rib fractures after a motor vehicle accident. Medical problems are stable. There 
are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. 
 
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: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the genetic testing provided on November 9, 2021, billed 
with codes 81225, 81226, 81227, 81230, 81231, 81240, 81241, 81291, 81328, 81355, 0031U, 0032U and 
0029U. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the genetic testing billed. You say that you would like this claim reprocessed and 
approved for payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this claim has not been billed as required 
by Medicare coding regulations. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules 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. 
 We looked at the file and Medicare rules. This was an NGS panel that was not billed with a single panel code 
as required. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the genetic testing billed 
have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the genetic testing provided on 
November 9, 2021, billed with codes 81225, 81226, 81227, 81230, 81231, 81240, 81241, 81291, 81328, 
81355, 0031U, 0032U and 0029U.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve hypoglossal nerve stimulator implantation for the 
enrollee. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve these services. You say that these services are medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says that polysomnography was completed on October 24, 2018, which is 
not within 24 months of the enrollee's first consultation. 
 
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 these services. Our reviewer says that 
the requested services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. A PSG was 
performed October 24, 2018, and the first consultation for hypoglossal nerve stimulator implantation occurred 
on December 7, 2021, over 3 years after PSG. Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee's condition does 
not meet criteria for coverage of these 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 these services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve hypoglossal nerve stimulator implantation for the enrollee.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the continuous glucose monitor (CGM) supplies rendered on 
April 27, 2020. 
 
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 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 perform blood glucose testing at least four times per 
day, use insulin with at least three daily injections, and require frequent self-adjustment of insulin dosage based on the blood glucose testing results and have had an in-person visit with their treating physician to assesses 
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 treat with 
insulin three or more times per day or use an insulin pump. 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 continuous glucose monitor (CGM) supplies rendered on April 27, 2020.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the services requested are medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the member is receiving appropriate in-patient acute 
care and does not require transfer to a 
long-term acute care hospital (LTACH). 
 
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 the enrollee does not require services at the LTACH that are not available at the acute 
care hospital where he/she is currently receiving care. All medically necessary care is being provided in the 
current acute care 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 the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a panoramic x-ray (D0330) and extraction of tooth #32 
(D7210) provided on April 11, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the dental services. You say that you are unable to pay this bill. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says your benefit for a panoramic x-ray has already been exhausted. The Plan also says 
that an extraction is not covered by your dental benefits. 
 
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 a panoramic x-ray was exhausted on date of service February 8, 2022. Extractions are 
not among those covered under this benefit. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a 
panoramic x-ray (D0330) and extraction of tooth #32 (D7210) provided on April 11, 2022.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the computed tomography (CT) scan coded 70450 provided 
on October 15, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the CT scan coded 70450. You say that you would like this claim reprocessed 
and approved for payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this claim is a duplicate of a previously 
paid claim and was correctly denied. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that claims or claim lines that have been determined to be 
exact duplicates of another claim or claim line are denied. However, such denials may be appealed. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The file includes evidence that the items/services at issue were 
reimbursed by the Plan on November 19, 2021. Comparison of the two claims shows these are exact duplicates. 
There is no evidence presented to support that the billed items/services were provided twice on the same date. 
Based on this information, we decided that the Medicare rules for the CT scan coded 70450 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the computed tomography (CT) scan coded 70450 
provided on October 15, 2021.
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 you need physical therapy to help you walk and 
occupational therapy to move your limbs again. You say that you need round the clock assistance to get back to 
good health. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says based on Medicare guidelines and the information we 
have about your condition you do not meet 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 you were admitted for rib fractures after a fall and atrial fibrillation. Medical 
problems are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. While you have a need for physical 
or occupational therapy, there is no documentation of a need for an intensive rehabilitation program. 
 
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 the IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve implant removal (code D6100). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve implant removal. You say that the implant is causing you irritation and your 
concerned about your tooth. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this service is not covered by the 
Plan's dental benefits. 
 
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, the requested items or services are not 
among those covered under this benefit. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve 
implant removal (code D6100).
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve radiofrequency ablation of the sacroiliac joint. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the requested services. You say that the enrollee had a successful diagnostic 
sacroiliac joint injection bilaterally. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says effectiveness has not been 
established. 
 
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 the requested services. Our physician 
reviewer found that the enrollee has chronic low back pain and bilaterally sacroiliitis. He is status post fusion 
L3-L4, L4-L5 and L5-S1. He had bilateral sacroiliac joint injections and achieved 95% pain relief. The 
requested procedure is considered experimental/investigational because of the wide variation in efficacy as 
reported in the literature. Therefore, the request is deemed not medically reasonable or 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 requested services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve radiofrequency ablation of the sacroiliac joint.