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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for under venipuncture and transfusion, comprehensive 
metabolic panel, and chemistry procedures laboratory services provided on May 23, 2022, by an out-of-
network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for under venipuncture and transfusion, comprehensive metabolic panel, and 
chemistry procedures laboratory services. You say that the records attached support the services as medically 
necessity. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there is no prior authorization on file for the services 
provided. 
  
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 pay for care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving emergencies, 
out of area urgent care and pre-approved care. 
 
The requested provider in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan had network providers 
available who could have provided the items/services at issue in this appeal. The Plan did not pre-approve the 
item/service at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay for these items/services. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for under venipuncture and transfusion, 
comprehensive metabolic panel, and chemistry procedures laboratory services provided on May 23, 2022, by 
an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code A0380 billed for date of service June 30, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code A0380. You say that the services at issue have been billed 
correctly. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the billed code is invalid for Medicare purposes. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate procedure code. 
 
 
  We find that procedure code A0380 has a Status Indicator of I on the Physician Fee Schedule. This means that 
procedure code A0380 is not valid for Medicare purposes. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare 
rules for coverage of procedure code A0380 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pay for procedure code A0380 billed for date of service June 30, 2022.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for validity testing billed with code 83789 for date(s) of service 
August 22, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for code 83789. You say that this service is medically necessary and should be paid. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says code 83789 is not separately payable. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers performing validity testing on urine 
specimens utilized for drug testing should not separately bill the validity testing. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of code 83789 have not been met. Specifically, we find that the testing described by code 83789 is not 
separately payable. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for validity testing billed with 
code 83789 for date(s) of service August 22, 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 the services are medically necessary and 
cannot be met in lower level of care setting. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee is 
receiving appropriate in-patient acute care and does not require transfer to a long-term acute care hospital. 
 
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.  
 
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: Hospice
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for physician's services provided on January 19, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for physician's services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says Original 
Medicare would be responsible for payment of all Medicare covered services related or unrelated to the 
members terminal condition. The Medicare hospice benefit, through fee-for-service Medicare, covers all 
hospice care from the effective date of election to the date of discharge or revocation. During the election, fee-
for-service Medicare also covers attending physician services and all care unrelated to the terminal illness until 
the first day of the month following the month in which hospice was revoked or discharged. 
 
Medicare rules say that Original Medicare, not the Plan, is responsible for all Medicare-covered non-hospice 
services. Medicare hospice pays for claims related to the terminal illness. The rules say that the Plan may direct 
the provider to bill Medicare directly for these services.  The enrollee was under the Medicare hospice benefit for the dates of service at issue in this appeal. Therefore, 
we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for physician's services provided on January 19, 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 it is not safe for you to return home without IRF 
care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an intensive rehabilitation program is not medically 
necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found that 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: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 74018 billed for date of service August 19, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 74018. You say that these services were medically necessary. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says payment for code 74018 is bundled into payment for code 74022.  
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 74018 
is a column II code to column I code 74022. 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 74018 billed for date of service August 19, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an office visit to be provided by an out-of-network 
(OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the physician service. You say that you thought the services were going to 
be provided by a participating provider. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested service can 
be provided in-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 confirmed there are 
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 an office visit to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code(s) 85060 billed for date of service July 19, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code(s) 85060. You say that this service was medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says this code is included in the facility payment and is not separately 
payable.  
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Technical components must be billed by the facility where the enrollee was an inpatient or outpatient and are 
not separately payable to the lab. 
 
The records indicate that the specimen was taken while the enrollee was an inpatient or outpatient. Per the 
Physician Fee Schedule, there is a Professional/Technical indicator of 8 for CPT code(s) 85060. This means 
there is both a professional and technical component for the CPT code(s). In this case, an appropriate modifier 
to indicate the professional component has not been billed with CPT code(s) 85060. Based on this information, 
we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of procedure code 85060 have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code(s) 85060 billed for date of service July 19, 2022.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve treatment with Orencia. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Orencia. You say that the requested drug is a medical necessity for the 
enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested drug is prescribed for an off-label, not 
medically accepted use. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare may pay for unlabeled uses for FDA-
approved drugs if they are medically accepted as safe and effective or appropriate for the particular use.  
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve Orencia. Our reviewer says that the 
requested drug is not medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found that the 
requested use of Orencia is not FDA-approved for the enrollee's diagnosis. Furthermore, the use is not 
supported by one of the major drug compendia or by clinical research that appears in a Medicare-approved 
medical journal. 
 
 
  We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Orencia have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve treatment with Orencia.
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 IRF care prior to returning home. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says you do not meet the Medicare criteria for admission to an IRF. 
 
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: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the cost share for specialist visit and Medicare Part B 
prescription drugs provided on September 14, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the cost share for specialist visit and Medicare Part B prescription drugs. You say 
that you are disputing the share cost. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this cost sharing was charged 
correctly. 
 
The rules say a plan must disclose to its enrollees in clear, accurate terms all cost sharing information (such as 
copayments, deductibles and coinsurance). Your contract with the Plan clearly says that you must pay $40 
copayment for physician/practitioner services, including doctor's office visits.  
 
You have been asked to pay $40 copayment for specialist visit and 20% coinsurance for Medicare Part B 
prescription drugs. These items/services fall within the physician/practitioner services, including doctor's office visits and Medicare Part B prescription drugs benefit categories. This means that you have been asked 
to pay the correct amount based on your contract with the Plan. This cost sharing is a contractual obligation 
you agreed to pay when you enrolled in the Plan. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to waive 
the cost share for specialist visit and Medicare Part B prescription drugs provided on September 14, 2022.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the CXbladder detect test (0012M) provided on July 31, 
2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the CXbladder detect test. You say that this service was medically necessary. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this service is not covered. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that codes 0012M and 0013M for CxBladder are non-
covered.  
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The service at issue is non-covered. Based on this information, we 
decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the CXbladder detect test have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the CXbladder detect test (0012M) provided on July 31, 2021.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for validity testing billed with code 83789 for date(s) of service 
August 30, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for code 83789. You say that this service is medically necessary and should be paid. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says code 83789 is not separately payable. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers performing validity testing on urine 
specimens utilized for drug testing should not separately bill the validity testing. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of code 83789 have not been met. Specifically, we find that the testing described by code 83789 is not 
separately payable. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for validity testing billed with 
code 83789 for date(s) of service August 30, 2022.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 99309 provided on September 21, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 99309. You say that you would like the Plan to reconsider their 
denial of 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 January 20, 2022. 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 procedure code 99309 have not been met. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 99309 provided on September 21, 
2021.
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 June 21, 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 June 21, 
2022.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for home health services billed for dates of service from June 26, 
2022, to June 27, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for home health services. You say that only one NOA is required. 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 March 28, 2022. There is no documentation in the case record that an NOA 
pertinent to this period of care has been submitted to the Plan. 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 billed for dates of service from June 26, 2022, to June 27, 2022.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 72125 billed for date of service August 29, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 72125. You say that this service was medically necessary. 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 submitted claims in which the unit of service 
exceeds the MUE value cannot be paid when the MAI value is 3, unless there is evidence justifying the excess 
units.  
 
In this case, the MUE for CPT code 72125 is 1. The MAI value for this code is 3. You billed 2 units of this 
code, exceeding the MUE. You did not provide all the required evidence showing that the excess units were 
actually provided, were correctly coded, and were medically necessary. Based on this information, we decided 
that Medicare rules for coverage of procedure code 72125 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 72125 billed for date of service August 29, 2022.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve skin tag removal. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve skin tag removal. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this is not 
medically necessary. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that skin tag removal is covered for the indications 
established in the applicable LCD. 
 
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 skin tag removal. Our reviewer says 
that the requested skin tag removal is not medically reasonable and necessary. Our physician reviewer found 
that the record indicates that the enrollee has asymptomatic benign skin tags. The record does not document the 
presence of functional impairment or diagnostic uncertainty. The elements of the coverage criteria are not 
satisfied. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of skin tag removal have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve skin tag removal.