Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the comprehensive oral evaluation provided on October 11, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the dental services. You say that you would not have gotten the evaluation if you 
knew it would not be covered. 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 September 7, 2022. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the comprehensive oral evaluation provided on 
October 11, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 99397 billed for date of service June 2, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 99397. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says procedure 
code 99397 is not covered. 
 
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 99397 has a status indicator of N on the Physician Fee Schedule. This means that 
procedure code 99397 is not covered. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage 
of procedure code 99397 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for 
procedure code 99397 billed for date of service June 2, 2022.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for lab services (83520) provided on August 7, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the lab services. You say that these services were necessary and are supported as 
billed. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you billed with an incorrect place of service on the claim. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that, for lab services, the POS code must reflect the 
location in which the sample was taken. POS code 81 is used to describe samples taken by the laboratory 
directly. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of the lab services have not been met. Specifically, this claim was billed with the laboratory POS code. The records do not support that the sample was taken in a laboratory setting. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pay for lab services (83520) provided on August 7, 2022.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the requested admission to an IRF is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested admission to an IRF does not meet 
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 was admitted for stroke and gastrointestinal bleeding. Medical problems 
are stable. 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. Medically necessary care can be provided in a 
different level of care. There is not a reasonable expectation that this enrollee will be able to fully participate in 
and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: 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. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
enrollee may safely remain in the current acute care location until such time no further acute level care is 
needed. 
 
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 record indicates that the enrollee has ongoing acute care needs and still requires 
acute care 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 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 LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the enrollee is expected to require 3-4 
weeks of care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request is not medically necessary. 
 
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. 
 
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 LTACH services.
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. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
enrollee is receiving appropriate in-patient acute care and is currently unstable for transfer to an 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 transfer to the LTACH is not medically necessary as it would not be clinically 
advantageous at this time. Completion of treatment at the current facility is recommended. 
 
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: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 93010 billed for date of service June 22, 
2022. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 93010. You say that you disagree with the Plan's denial. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says payment for code 93010 is bundled into payment for code 36556. 
 
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 93010 
is a column II code to column I code 36556. 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 93010 billed for date of service June 22, 2022.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for lab services provided on April 7, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the lab services. You say that this service is covered for the patient's diagnosis 
and was medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you billed with an incorrect place of 
service on the claim. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that, for lab services, the POS code must reflect the 
location in which the sample was taken. POS code 81 is used to describe samples taken by the laboratory 
directly. 
 
 We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of the lab services have not been met. Specifically, this claim was billed with the laboratory POS 
code. The records do not support that the sample was taken in a laboratory setting. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pay for lab services provided on April 7, 2022.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health services rendered from June 27, 2022, to 
July 20, 2022. 
 
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 services were not billed correctly. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that in addition to reporting a visit line using the G codes, 
HHAs must report an additional line item with the same revenue code and date of service, reporting one of the 
three Q codes (Q5001, Q5002, and Q5009). 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The file shows that the claim was not billed with one of the three 
required Q codes. The claim was incorrectly billed with code Q5003. 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 home health services rendered from June 27, 2022, to July 20, 2022.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve treatment with Motegrity tablet. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Motegrity. You say that the requested drug is a medical necessity for the 
enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says rules for coverage of self-administered drugs have not 
been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare Part B generally does not pay for self-
administered drugs. The self-administered drug requested here is not among the types which are covered by 
Medicare Part B. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve treatment with Motegrity 
tablet.  
 Benefits for Motegrity may be available under Medicare Part D. Contact the Plan that administers Part D 
benefits for further information concerning any benefits and appeal rights.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve placement of stabilizing device to lower spine level 
(Superion Vertiflex device) (22869). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Vertiflex device. You say that the requested device would help to treat the 
enrollee's condition. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested device is 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 Vertiflex device. Our reviewer says that 
the requested Vertiflex device is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found the requested device is considered experimental and investigational as additional research is 
needed. Therefore, the reviewer found that the requested device is 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 Vertiflex device have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve placement of stabilizing device to lower spine level (Superion Vertiflex device) 
(22869).
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve icosapent ethyl. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve icosapent ethyl. You say that the requested drug is medically necessary for 
the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested drug is considered self-administered. 
The Plan says self-administered drugs are covered under a Medicare Part D prescription drug plan. The Plan 
also says the requested drug is not covered under Medicare Part B. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare Part B generally does not pay for self-
administered drugs. The self-administered drugs requested here are not among the types which are covered by 
Medicare Part B. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve icosapent ethyl.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for lab services provided on January 26, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the lab services. You say that you have provided records to support the medical 
necessity of these services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you billed with an incorrect place of 
service on the claim. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that, for lab services, the POS code must reflect the 
location in which the sample was taken. POS code 81 is used to describe samples taken by the laboratory 
directly. 
 
 We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of the lab services have not been met. Specifically, this claim was billed with the laboratory POS 
code. The records do not support that the sample was taken in a laboratory setting. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pay for lab services provided on January 26, 2022.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve continued SNF care. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that SNF care is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says that SNF care is no longer 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 the enrollee does not have documented skilled nursing or skilled therapy needs. 
Daily skilled services are not shown to be required to establish a maintenance program or to prevent 
deterioration of the enrollees condition. 
 
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 continued SNF care.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a walker provided on July 28, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for a walker. You say that the item should be covered. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says this item does not qualify under the Plan's wallet benefit and it is considered durable medical 
equipment (DME) and was purchased through a provider that is not enrolled in Medicare. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare payment cannot be made to a provider that is 
not enrolled in the Medicare program. 
 
Review of the file and Medicare records indicates that the provider at issue is not enrolled in the Medicare 
program. This item does not qualify under the wallet benefit and is considered durable medical equipment 
which must be purchased through qualified DME providers. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pay for a walker provided on July 28, 2022.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 83789 billed for date of service July 27, 
2022.  
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 83789. You say that you disagree with the Plan's denial. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says payment for code 83789 is bundled into payment for code 80307. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate CPT code. The rules also state that providers may bill 
services with a -59 modifier if the service billed with the modifier indicates a distinct procedural service.   
 
In this case, we have confirmed that code 83789 is a column II code to column I code 80307. While code 
83789 was billed with modifier -59, the medical records provided do not show that the service billed with the  
-59 modifier is a distinct procedural service. Code 80307 include specimen validity and mass spectrometry. 
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 83789 billed for date of service July 27, 2022.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Orthovisc. 
 
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 step therapy requirement is not met. 
 
Medicare covers Part B medications when they are reasonable and necessary but allows health plans to 
implement step therapy criteria. The Plan's contract indicates that it has implemented such criteria for certain 
Part B medications.  
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve these services. Our reviewer says that 
the services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has knee osteoarthritis. She 
has not tried and failed the Plan's required drugs, Monovisc, Orthovisc, Synvisc, or Euflexxa. The records do 
not support that the required drugs would be contraindicated or less effective; therefore, Orthovisc is not 
reasonable or 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 these services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve Orthovisc.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Feraheme (Q0138). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Feraheme. You say that there is an Infed shortage, and oral medications are 
not working. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this request is not medically necessary. 
 
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 Feraheme. Our reviewer says that 
Feraheme is not reasonable and necessary for the enrollee. Our physician reviewer found the record indicates 
that the enrollee has a diagnosis of iron deficiency anemia. The record does not indicate that the enrollee has 
had intolerance to or an unsatisfactory response to oral iron. Our reviewer found that the FDA has not stated 
that the requested drug is indicated for the enrollee's condition. The Medicare approved drug compendia do not 
contain a supportive citation for the use of the requested drug in the enrollee's clinical situation. Our physician 
reviewer also found that the elements of the coverage criteria are not satisfied, and the requested service cannot 
be recommended. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Feraheme have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Feraheme (Q0138).
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Aranesp (J0881). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Aranesp. You say that Aranesp is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says a trial of Retacrit or Procrit is required before alternatives can be considered. 
 
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 Aranesp. Our reviewer says that 
Aranesp is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the records do not show a trial of the plan 
preferred drugs, or any reason they would be unsafe or ineffective for the enrollee. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Aranesp have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Aranesp (J0881).