Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a home ventilator (E0466). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a home ventilator. You say that you disagree with the denial. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the request for a home mechanical ventilator set in iVAPS mode with Auto-
EPAP (AE) that could be delivered by BiPAP is not covered. 
 
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 a home ventilator. Our reviewer says 
that the service is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has a diagnosis of 
chronic respiratory failure consequent to a neuromuscular disorder who also has obstructive sleep apnea.  
Provided records document that the home ventilator is being requested for use in intelligent volume assured 
pressure support (IVAPS) mode which could be provided by a BiPAP device with average volume assured 
pressure support (AVAPS) and a back-up rate. As stated in the Local Coverage Determination (L33800): 
"Claims for ventilators used to provide CPAP or bi-level CPAP therapy for conditions described in this RAD 
policy will be denied as not reasonable and 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 a home ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a home ventilator (E0466).
Appeal type: ER
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for procedure codes 99285 and 93010 provided on March 8, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure codes 99285 and 93010. You say that you would like the Plan to 
reconsider their denial of payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the services are not 
covered as billed. 
 
Medicare rules say that a contract provider is an agent of the plan. Services and referrals given by a contract 
provider are considered approved by the plan unless notice is provided that the services will not be covered. 
The plan follows these rules. 
 
The enrollee was referred for procedure codes 99285 and 93010 by a contract provider. The file does not show 
that the plan provided notice that procedure codes 99285 and 93010 would not be covered. Under Medicare 
rules, this means procedure codes 99285 and 93010 are considered approved by the plan. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan has to pay for procedure codes 99285 and 93010 provided on March 8, 2022.  
 
If the Plan does not agree with our decision, they can ask us to open a case again. We only open a case again 
if we believe there was a mistake or if there is new information to review. The Plan has to show us the mistake 
and/or send us the new information. This does not happen often. If we decide to open the case again, we will 
send you a letter.
Appeal type: ER
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for emergency department services (procedure code 99285) 
rendered on September 20, 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 there is no clinical information included showing high severity/immediate significant threat to 
life or physiological function. 
 
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 99285 is "Emergency department visit for the evaluation 
and management of a patient, which requires these 3 key components within the constraints imposed by the 
urgency of the patient's clinical condition and/or mental status: A comprehensive history; A comprehensive 
examination; and Medical decision making of high complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with 
other physicians, other qualified health care professionals, or agencies are provided consistent with the nature 
of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of high 
severity and pose an immediate significant threat to life or physiologic function." 
 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 the review has determined that 
although the records supported a comprehensive history and examination,  the records did not support that the 
presenting problems were high severity, posing an immediate significant threat to life or physiological 
function. The medical decision making was not of high complexity in this case. 
 
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 emergency department services (procedure code 99285) rendered on September 20, 2022.
Appeal type: ER
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for emergency room services (procedure code 99285) rendered 
from November 12, 2022, to November 13, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. You say that the payment should be for CPT 99285. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the claim was downgraded. 
 
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 99285 is "Emergency department visit for the evaluation 
and management of a patient, which requires these 3 key components within the constraints imposed by the 
urgency of the patient's clinical condition and/or mental status: A comprehensive history; A comprehensive 
examination; and Medical decision making of high complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with 
other physicians, other qualified health care professionals, or agencies are provided consistent with the nature 
of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of high 
severity and pose an immediate significant threat to life or physiologic function."  
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 based on the provided 
documentation, there was not a partially complete examination and history, but there was not evidence of 
medical decision making of high complexity or problems of high severity, posing immediate threat to life or 
function for the patient. 
 
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 emergency room services (procedure code 99285) rendered from November 12, 2022, to 
November 13, 2022.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for inpatient hospital services rendered from March 8, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the inpatient hospital services at the DRG originally billed. You say that this 
should be paid for. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says a claim overpayment was identified. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report inpatient hospital services with the appropriate DRG, which is based, in part, on the 
reported principal and secondary diagnosis codes.    
In this case, you billed the inpatient services provided with diagnosis code A41.9. 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 inpatient hospital services at the DRG originally billed. Our 
reviewer says that the services at issue in this case were not supported by the medical records. Our physician 
reviewer found that based on the provided documentation, the patient does not meet Sepsis 3 criteria. The 
patient did not have any objective evidence of a systemic infection or a dysregulated response to infection 
causing organ failure as required for sepsis diagnosis (A41.9).  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided the 
medical records do not substantiate the DRG as billed. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay 
for inpatient hospital services rendered from March 8, 2022.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for resin-based composite - one surface, posterior (D2391) 
Tooth #30. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for dental services. You say that you say that this service should be covered under 
your insurance. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you disenrolled from the optional supplemental 
plan effective September 1, 2022. Therefore, at the time of this service you did not have coverage. 
 
Medicare generally does not cover dental services. The Plan follows the same rule. 
 
The services you are asking the Plan to pay for involve the care, treatment, filling, removal or replacement of 
your teeth or the structures directly supporting your teeth. These are dental services that are not covered or paid 
for by Medicare. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for resin-based composite - one 
surface, posterior (D2391) Tooth #30.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve dental services D6068 and D7921. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve dental services. You say that this should be covered. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says that D7921 is not a covered service and you have met the limitations for D6068. 
 
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 
dental services D6068 and D7921.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 70450 billed for date of service September 
23, 2022. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 70450. You say that the claim was billed correctly and should be 
paid. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says payment for code 70450 is bundled into payment for code 
70496. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate CPT code. In this case, we have confirmed that code 70450 
is a column II code to column I code 70496. This claim has not been billed with an appropriate modifier to 
bypass the edit. Based on the claim submitted, Medicare billing criteria have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 70450 billed for date of service September 23, 
2022.
Appeal type: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve additional trips for routine transportation beyond the 
Plan's 72-trip limit. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve additional trips for routine transportation. You say that you need additional 
transportation to appointments. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested number of trips 
exceeds your benefit limit. 
 
Medicare does not cover transport in a vehicle that is not an ambulance. However, the Plan offers a 
transportation benefit that exceeds Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plans coverage rules apply in this 
case. The Plan covers a maximum of 72 trips per year.  
 We looked at your request, the records in the case file, and the rules. Based on this information, we decided 
that the requested number of trips will exceed the Plan maximum benefit for coverage of routine transportation. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve additional trips for routine transportation 
beyond the Plan's 72-trip limit.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve dermatology services to be provided by an out-of-
network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve OON services. You say that the enrollee requires a procedure to diagnose 
lesions. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there are in-network providers available. 
 
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 services at issue in this appeal. We found no exception that would require the 
Plan to pre-approve these OON services. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve 
dermatology services 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 pay for the durable medical equipment provided on October 11, 
2022, by an out-of-network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the durable medical equipment provided by an OON provider. You say that you 
would like the Plan to reconsider their denial of payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
services provided were neither emergent nor urgent and prior authorization was not obtained to provide out-of-
network care. 
 
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 the durable medical equipment provided on 
October 11, 2022, by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve incontinence supplies. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve incontinence supplies. You say that you need these supplies. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says incontinence supplies are not covered. 
 
The Plan covers all items that Medicare covers. Medicare rules state that incontinence supplies are not covered 
because they are hygienic items that are non-reusable.  
 
While incontinence supplies may be appropriate in this case, neither the Plan nor Medicare offers coverage of 
these items. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve incontinence supplies.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a home ventilator (E0466). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a home ventilator. You say that the enrollee has been treated with a non-
invasive ventilator for some time and has been compliant and benefitting tremendously from therapy. You also 
say that the only option for this enrollee is to continue noninvasive volume ventilation in AVAPS -AE mode 
via Trilogy. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says records do not show failure of BiPAP. The records 
show that BiPAP helped the enrollee in the hospital. The doctor has requested a NIV in AVAPS mode, which 
can be met by a BiPAP. The request is not medically necessary. 
 
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 a home ventilator. Our reviewer says 
that the service is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has a diagnosis of 
chronic respiratory failure consequent to chronic obstructive pulmonary. Provided records document that the 
enrollee was successfully treated for her lung disease with BiPAP, steroids, antibiotics, and nebulizers in the 
hospital in May and June 2022. Provided records document that the home ventilator is being requested for use 
in average volume assured pressure support (AVAPS) mode with auto-titration (AE) which could be provided 
by a BiPAP device with AVAPS and a back-up rate. As stated in the Local Coverage Determination (L33800): 
"Claims for ventilators used to provide CPAP or bi-level CPAP therapy for conditions described in this RAD 
policy will be denied as not reasonable and 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 a home ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a home ventilator (E0466).
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 necessary for the 
enrollee to achieve a safe and sustainable discharge. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's 
medical needs are being met in the current setting. 
 
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 is receiving appropriate care at the present acute care hospital. The 
enrollee does not require services at the LTACH that are not available at the acute care hospital where they are 
currently receiving 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 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a heavy-duty wheelchair (K0006), elevating leg rests 
(K0195), back cushion (E2612), safety belt (E0978), anti-tipping device (E0971), and seat cushion (E2601). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a heavy-duty wheelchair. You say that the member needs this item. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says this item will primarily be used outside of the home. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules state that for equipment to be covered, it must be appropriate 
and needed for use inside the home.  
 
The item at issue in this appeal is for use outside of the home. Although this item may be helpful, neither 
Medicare nor the Plan covers equipment for use outside the home. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a heavy-duty wheelchair (K0006), elevating leg rests (K0195), back cushion (E2612), 
safety belt (E0978), anti-tipping device (E0971), and seat cushion (E2601).
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve therapeutic CGM. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve therapeutic CGM. You say that the enrollee would benefit from using a 
therapeutic CGM. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not require insulin three or 
more times daily. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that therapeutic CGMs are considered medically 
reasonable and necessary for enrollees with diabetes who use insulin with at least three daily administrations, 
require frequent self-adjustment of insulin dosage based on the blood glucose testing results and have had an 
in-person visit with their treating physician to assess adherence to their CGM regimen and diabetes treatment 
plan. 
 
  We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The documentation indicates that the enrollee does not use insulin 
with at least three daily injections. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of 
therapeutic CGM have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve 
therapeutic CGM.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an ultrasound, soft tissues of head and neck (76536) to 
be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve an ultrasound of the head and neck. You say that you disagree with the 
denial and request reconsideration. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee must receive care 
from a network provider. The Plan allows for OON coverage for emergency services or when there are 
no in-network providers available. The documentation reflects that this is not an emergency and that there are 
in-network providers available. 
 
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 
an ultrasound, soft tissues of head and neck (76536) to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.