Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the services are medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the request is for the inpatient rehabilitation level of care exceeds your 
medical needs. 
 
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 does not require treatment by multiple therapies. While the medical 
record supports a need for physical or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive 
rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different level of 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 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 pre-approve intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and 
image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IMRT/IGRT. You say that the requested services are a medical necessity for 
the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested services are 
experimental/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 IMRT/IGRT. Our reviewer says that 
the requested services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found that the provided records in this case do not document the necessity of the IMRT/IGRT 
technique versus three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy or conventional isodose technique for treatment of 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 IMRT/IGRT have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT).
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee would highly benefit from intensive 
therapy prior to returning home. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested IRF admission 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 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 does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational 
therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While the enrollee may have a need for physical 
therapy 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 patient 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 an IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for code 99285 billed for date of service July 22, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for code 99285. You did not provide a specific argument with your appeal request. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says code 99285 is not supported by the medical record. 
 
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 for the evaluation and management of a patient, 
which requires these 3 key components: a comprehensive history; a comprehensive examination; and medical 
decision making of high complexity. 
 
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 code 99285. Our reviewer says that code 99285 is not 
supported in the medical record. Our reviewer found the medical decision making was  not of high complexity.   
We looked at this coder's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of code 99285 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pay for code 99285 billed for date of service July 22, 2022.
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 you would like reconsideration based on 
the records submitted.  The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the records do not show that is it medically 
necessary to be in an LTACH in place of an 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 that the enrollee is a 94-year-old male who was admitted to the acute care hospital 
with acute respiratory failure, hypotension, lactic acidosis, septic shock requiring intubation, antibiotics, and 
ventilator support. The course was complicated by encephalopathy. The enrollee was treated with tracheostomy and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placements. Recent notes indicate the enrollee is still on 
mechanical ventilation at night but has been able to tolerate pressure support (PS) trials during the day and is 
tolerating tube feeds but is still confused requiring soft restraints.  
 
The enrollee appears to be improving but is still somewhat unstable and requires short-term additional acute 
care services that can safely be provided at the current facility until more appropriate for transfer. There are no 
services at the LTACH that the enrollee requires that are not already available and covered at the current 
facility. Transfer to the LTACH is not medically necessary as the enrollee is not yet stable and would not be 
clinically advantageous.  
 
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 an IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you are appealing this denial. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says admission to the IRF 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. You do not 
require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an 
intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While you may have a need for physical therapy 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 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 an IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee should be admitted to an inpatient 
rehabilitation hospital for medically necessary care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the records do 
not show that the enrollee needs an intensive team for their care. 
 
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 does not require treatment by multiple therapies. While the medical 
record supports a need for physical or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive 
rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different level of 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 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 pay for subsequent hospital care (procedure code 99233) rendered on 
July 7, 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 Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 99233 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 99233 is "Subsequent hospital care, per day, for the 
evaluation and management of a patient, which requires at least 2 of these 3 key components: A detailed 
interval history; A detailed examination; 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 patient is 
unstable or has developed a significant complication or a significant new problem. Typically, 35 minutes are 
spent at the bedside and on the patient's hospital floor or unit." 
 
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 in this case, the documentation 
doesnt support the CPT code 99233. The documentation available for review does not support that the enrollee 
developed a significant complication or that medical decision making of high complexity was needed. 
 
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 subsequent hospital care (procedure code 99233) rendered on July 7, 2022.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you would like reconsideration based on the records 
submitted. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you do not meet the requirements for an IRF 
admission. 
 
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. You had non- 
surgical treatment of an ankle fracture in January 2023 and are living at home with ongoing difficulties 
ambulating. Your medical problems are stable and there are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs.  
You do not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, 
and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While you may have a need for physical therapy 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 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 an IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a manual wheelchair with accessories (E2211, E2609, 
K0040, E0990, E0961, K0108, E0951, E2311, E2206, E2208, E0973, E0956, E0971, K0005, E1028). 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve the manual wheelchair with accessories. You say that this chair is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says coverage criteria has not been met. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that wheelchairs and accessories are only covered when 
medically necessary. 
 
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 manual wheelchair with accessories. 
Our reviewer says that the requested wheelchair is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the 
mobility deficit can be partially met with a walker but the patient gets shortness of breath and fatigue easily, 
therefore she is a limited functional ambulator. The requested wheelchair and features exceed the enrollee's 
needs. The enrollee does not have severe postural deformities that need lateral trunk support or custom 
components. She can independently weight shift therefore can use a prefabricated back and seat. She does not 
require angle adjustable foot plates nor elevating leg rests which would be cumbersome to self propel and 
contribute little to edema management. She can transfer independently to bed or chair for edema management. 
An open back angle is not required. 
 
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 manual wheelchair with accessories have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a manual wheelchair with accessories (E2211, E2609, 
K0040, E0990, E0961, K0108, E0951, E2311, E2206, E2208, E0973, E0956, E0971, K0005, E1028).
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for the GTC-Hematology Profile Plus provided on July 12, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the GTC-Hematology Profile Plus. You say that this is a medically necessary test 
that should be covered. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that this claim was denied as LCD criteria 
were not met; however, no appeal review of the issue was performed as the Plan missed its time frame. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that for molecular diagnostic tests, such as the test at issue, 
the MolDX program requires these tests to be reviewed to determine whether Medicare reasonable and 
necessary requirements are met. When such review is complete, the test is assigned a unique identifier and the 
coverage status is listed in the DEXTM Diagnostics Exchange.  
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. We reviewed the DEX Diagnostics Exchange and found that this test 
is listed as covered by Medicare. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the 
GTC-Hematology Profile Plus have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for the GTC-
Hematology Profile Plus provided on July 12, 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: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Euflexxa. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve Euflexxa. You say that the enrollee has been diagnosed with osteoporosis. 
You say that the enrollee cannot have corticosteroid shots. You say that the enrollee was previously prescribed 
Orthovisc was denied. You also say that it is medically necessary the enrollee start treatment as soon as 
possible. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee has not tried and failed the preferred drugs. 
 
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 Euflexxa. Our reviewer says that the 
step therapy criteria have not been met. Our physician reviewer found the provided documentation does not 
indicate the enrollee has tried and failed the preferred drugs. The reviewer found that there is no documentation 
provided indicating that the plans required drugs would likely be less effective and/or likely have adverse 
effects for the enrollee. Therefore, the reviewer found that the step therapy criteria have not been met. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Euflexxa have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Euflexxa.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for dental services provided by an out-of-network (OON) 
provider on August 17, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the dental services. You say that this should be covered. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the dental services were received from an out-of-network provider and are not covered 
by your supplemental 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. 
 
The record shows you received the requested dental services from an out-of-network provider. Though the Plan 
offers a dental benefit in excess of Medicare coverage, the requested items or services are not covered under this benefit when received from an out-of-network provider. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pay for dental services provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider on August 17, 2021.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an Intracept procedure. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve an Intracept procedure. 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 thermal destruction of the intraosseous BVN will be 
considered medically reasonable and necessary for the treatment of chronic low back pain (cLBP) in patients 
who meet specific criteria. 
 
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 an Intracept procedure. Our reviewer 
says that the services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the magnetic resonance 
imaging (MRI) shows spinal stenosis, disc herniation and facet degenerative joint disease (djd). The cause of 
back pain is unclear. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of an Intracept procedure have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve an Intracept procedure.