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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve admission to a skilled nursing facility (SNF). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that SNF care is medically necessary for the enrollee's 
condition. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the criteria for SNF care have not been met. 
 
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 daily 
skilled services are not necessary. Our physician reviewer found based on the limited documentation provided, 
the enrollee does not qualify for SNF coverage. The enrollee does not have documented skilled nursing needs.  
The enrollee does not have documented 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 admission to a skilled nursing facility (SNF).
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 IRF care is medically necessary and would help get 
you back to some normalcy. You say that you fear you could have another accident which would be 
detrimental to your health. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the guidelines for coverage of IRF care 
have not been met. The Plan says that the enrollee could receive care in another setting. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our physician reviewer found the complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does 
not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The 
enrollee was admitted for surgical reduction of a left wrist fracture in March 2022 and was discharged home 
with home health services. There is ongoing weakness. The enrollee's 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 enrollee has a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documentation of a need for 
an intensive rehabilitation program. There is not a reasonable expectation that the enrollee will be able to fully 
participate in and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to provide reimbursement for the eye exam and eyewear purchased on 
March 16, 2020. 
 You asked the Plan to provide reimbursement for the eyewear and exam. You say that you feel that this should 
be covered. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this was denied correctly as your Plan does not have 
out-of-network coverage. Also the claims were submitted more than a year after the service. 
 
Medicare generally does not cover routine vision and eyewear services. However, the Plan offers a routine 
vision and eyewear benefit that exceeds Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plan's coverage rules apply in 
this case. The Plan covers these services when provided by a network provider. 
 
We looked at the file and the Plan's rules. The file shows you went to an out of network provider and received 
the services at issue. This was correctly denied based on your vision benefit. Based on this information, we 
decided that the Plan's rules for coverage of the eyewear and exam have not been met. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan does not have to provide reimbursement for the eye exam and eyewear purchased on March 16, 
2020.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a home ventilator. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the requested device. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says a setting 
that could be delivered by a 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 the requested device. Our physician 
reviewer found that you have chronic respiratory failure from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. You were 
admitted with respiratory decompensation due to spontaneous pneumothorax. The primary source 
documentation does not contain sufficient detailed information in the medical record to justify the requested 
service selected. You could be treated with a BiPAP machine with AVAPS capability. The plan has indicated 
such a device is available. Therefore, the requested ventilator is 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 device have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve a home ventilator.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you are recovering from brain surgery and live alone. 
You say that it is not safe to be alone and that more therapy is needed. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says the guidelines for coverage have not been met. The Plan says that the enrollee can safely receive the 
services needed in other settings. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our physician reviewer found the complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does 
not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The 
enrollee was admitted for surgical management of a subdural hematoma. The enrollee's 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 enrollee has a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no 
documentation of a need for an intensive rehabilitation program. 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: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for laboratory testing provided to the enrollee on December 8, 
2021. 
 
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 laboratory testing related to treatment of end-stage renal disease is bundled into dialysis services 
and is not separately reimbursable. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules state that routine ESRD lab services are not separately 
payable. Labs should bill the facility directly for lab 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 
laboratory testing provided to the enrollee on December 8, 2021.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for surgical services provided to the enrollee on July 18, 2021. 
 
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 Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 27814 (1 unit) remains not supported. 
 
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 27814 is "Open treatment of bimalleolar ankle fracture 
(eg, lateral and medial malleoli, or lateral and posterior malleoli, or medial and posterior malleoli), includes 
internal fixation, when performed." 
 
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 the operative report documents a date 
of service of July 20, 2021. In this case, the date of service cannot be verified, as the operative report and billed 
dates of service do not match. 
 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 surgical services provided to the enrollee on July 18, 2021.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient hospital care. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve acute inpatient hospital care. You say that the requested inpatient hospital 
care is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested inpatient hospital care 
does not meet criteria. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that inpatient hospital care is covered when the doctor 
expects the patient to need hospital care that crosses at least two midnights. In rare and unusual cases, 
consideration may be given to inpatient hospital care when the hospital stay does not cross two midnights or 
more.  
 
 
 
 
 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 acute inpatient hospital care. Our 
reviewer says that the documentation does not support that the criteria for inpatient hospital care are met in this 
case. Our physician reviewer found the review indicates that you are medically stable; there is no specific 
clinical rationale for an inpatient admission for the elective procedure. The review indicates that the record 
does not show that at the time of inpatient admission the admitting physician reasonably expected that your 
necessary hospital care (including earlier ED and/or observation care) would span two midnights. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of acute inpatient hospital care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient hospital care.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the special anesthesia service (99100) provided on December 
8, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the special anesthesia service (99100). You say that the attached medical records 
should be reviewed to reprocess the claim. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says bundled services are 
not eligible for separate payment. 
  The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate CPT code. 
 
We find that CPT code 99100 has a status indicator of B on the Physician Fee Schedule. This means that CPT 
code 99100 is not separately payable. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage 
of the special anesthesia service (99100) have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pay for the special anesthesia service (99100) provided on December 8, 2021.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for laboratory services provided to the enrollee on March 3, 
2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. You say that this should be paid for. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says the denied codes remain not supported. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that 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 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 laboratory services provided to the enrollee on March 3, 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 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 you are medically stable and does not need PM&R physician close supervision 3 
times per week (at a minimum) for the ongoing management of any active or acute exacerbations of chronic 
medical conditions.  While you may benefit from physical therapy, and occupational therapy, your rehab can be 
safely provided at a lower intensity and alternate setting such as in a skilled nursing facility or in-home with 
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 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 FoundationOne CDx test (0037U) provided November 23, 
2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for FoundationOne CDx test. You say that you are requesting reconsideration of the 
denied claim for FoundationOne CDx, billed under a propriety laboratory analysis code 0037U. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says does not meet Medicare NCD/LCD criteria. 
 
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 0037U is targeted genomic sequence analysis, solid organ 
neoplasm, DNA analysis of 324 genes, interrogation for sequence variants, gene copy number amplifications, 
gene rearrangements, microsatellite instability and tumor mutational burden. 
 
We find that CPT code 0037U is not supported in the medical record. Specifically, the genetic testing was not 
ordered/approved by the ordering provide as per outreach to the providers office. Based on this information, we 
decided that Medicare rules for coverage of FoundationOne CDx test have not been met. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan does not have to pay for FoundationOne CDx test (0037U) provided November 23, 2021.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for intraoral imaging (D0220 and D0230) provided by a 
participating provider on December 7, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for intraoral imaging. You say that these services should be covered. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says D0220 and D0230 are not covered 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 pay for intraoral 
imaging (D0220 and D0230) provided by a participating provider on December 7, 2021.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the MyoPro 2 Motion G system for the enrollee. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the system. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says this is experimental and investigational. 
 
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 system. Our reviewer says that the 
requested services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer 
found at this time, the requested robotic orthosis is not proven to be more beneficial for treatment of the 
patient's medical condition/function of hemiparesis after stroke than any available standard therapy such as 
conventional treatments for post stroke hemiparesis therapy including constraint induced movement therapy, 
conventional muscle strengthening, and botox for spasticity if needed. The requested device is not reasonable 
and necessary for the diagnosis or treatment of an illness or injury or  to improve the functioning of a 
malformed body member. The MyoPro is not known to be effective, based on scientific evidence, professional 
standards and expert opinion, in improving health outcomes in stroke patients. The MyoPro is not in 
widespread use based on scientific evidence. There is insufficient evidence in the literature that the MyoPro Orthosis will improve the long term outcomes for this patient, improve hemiparetic arm function, or be safe for 
long term use. There is insufficient evidence in the literature that this device will increase  participation in 
bimanual activities. 
 
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 system have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve the MyoPro 2 Motion G system for the enrollee.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve cervical or thoracic facet injections. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve cervical or thoracic facet injections. You say that the services are necessary. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says based on the documentation provided, coverage criteria has not 
been met. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that an initial thermal RFA of cervical, thoracic, or 
lumbar paravertebral facet joint (medial branch) nerves is considered medically reasonable and necessary when 
specific criteria are met. 
 
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 cervical or thoracic facet injections. 
Our reviewer says that the services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found you had cardiac stents placed on February 14, 2022, and cannot have anti-coagulants discontinued. This does not meet the 
criteria of the LCD. The request is 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 cervical or thoracic facet injections have not been met. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan does not have to pre-approve cervical or thoracic facet injections.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the specimen handling (99000) provided on November 16, 
2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the specimen handling (99000). You say that the claim should be reopened and 
reviewed. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says bundled services are not eligible for separate payment. 
  The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate CPT code. 
 
We find that CPT code 99000 has a status indicator of B on the Physician Fee Schedule. This means that CPT 
code 99000 is not separately payable. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage 
of the specimen handling (99000) have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay 
for the specimen handling (99000) provided on November 16, 2021.