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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayments for an ankle x-ray and a specialist office visit 
provided on September 27, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayments for an x-ray and a specialist office visit. You say that you never 
have paid for x-rays. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you have been charged the correct cost 
sharing amount. 
 
The rules say a plan must disclose to its enrollees in clear, accurate terms all cost sharing information (such as 
copayments, deductibles and coinsurance). Your contract with the Plan clearly says that you must pay a $20 copayment for x-rays. The contract also says 
that a separate physician office copayment may apply if other services are rendered at the time of the visit. The 
Plan contract also says that enrollees must pay a $35 copayment for a specialist office visit. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $20 copayment for an x-ray. An x-ray falls within the Outpatient Diagnostic 
Tests and Therapeutic Services and Supplies benefit category. You have also been asked to pay a $35 
copayment for a specialist office visit. A specialist office visit falls within the Physician/Practitioner Services, 
Including Doctors Office Visits benefit category. You have been asked to pay a total of $55 ($20 copayment + 
$35 copayment = $55 copayment). This means that you have been asked to pay the correct amount based on 
your contract with the Plan. This cost sharing is a contractual obligation you agreed to pay when you enrolled 
in the Plan. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayments for an ankle x-ray and a 
specialist office visit provided on September 27, 2021.
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Hyalgan. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Hyalgan. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee has not 
tried and failed Orthovisc or Supartz FX. 
 
 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 Hyalgan. Our physician reviewer found 
that the enrollee has osteoarthritis of the knee. The Plan requires a trial of Orthovisc or Supartz FX before they 
will approve the requested drug. In this case, the enrollee has not tried and failed the required drugs. There is 
no documentation provided indicating that the Plans required drugs would likely be less effective or likely 
have adverse effects 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 Hyalgan have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Hyalgan.
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Prolia. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Prolia. You say that this drug is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says step therapy criteria have not been 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 Prolia. Our reviewer says that this drug 
is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the Plan requires a trial of (1) an oral bisphosphonate 
drug (e.g., alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate) and (2) zoledronic acid (generic Reclast) before they will 
approve the requested drug. In this case. the patient has not tried and failed the required drug(s). There is no 
documentation provided indicating that the plans required drug(s) would likely be less effective and/or likely 
have adverse effects 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 Prolia have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pre-approve Prolia.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for inpatient hospital services provided to the enrollee from 
October 16, 2021, to October 20, 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 medical records provided do not support payment under this DRG.  
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 DRG 640 (MISCELLANEOUS DISORDERS OF 
NUTRITION, METABOLISM, FLUIDS AND ELECTROLYTES WITH MCC). 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 services. Our reviewer says that the services at issue in this case 
were not supported by the medical records. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee was treated in the 
hospital with renal failure. He presented with weakness, vomiting, diarrhea, hypotension. Blood work showed 
evidence for acute kidney injury on chronic kidney disease (Cr 3.9), and he was given fluids. No baseline 
kidney function was provided, however, after initial treatment with fluids, Cr reduced to 1.6. Lactic acidosis 
also improved with fluid administration and kidney improvement. The most appropriate DRG, therefore, would 
be 683 as DRG 640 is not sufficiently supported in the documentation.  
 
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 provided to the enrollee from October 16, 2021, to October 20, 2021.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve private duty home health aide care. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve custodial care. You say that you need these services. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says custodial care is not covered by Medicare or the Plan. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that custodial care, which does not include services from 
trained medical or paramedical staff, is not covered.  
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of custodial care have not been met. Specifically, we find that the services at issue in this case are 
considered custodial in nature. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve private duty 
home health aide care.
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 had an expensive hospitalization and cannot 
function without IRF to get back to function. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the denial of 
authorization for IRF service is correct. 
 
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 your nursing, medical, and rehabilitation needs does not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. While you may need 
physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for an intensive rehabilitation program. 
There is not a reasonable expectation that you will be able to fully participate in - and benefit from - the 
intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the hands/wrists for the 
enrollee. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the MRI. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says that the records do not show any x-rays of the hands or wrists. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that MRIs are covered only when they are 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 MRI. Our reviewer says that the 
requested MRI is medically reasonable and necessary. Our physician reviewer found bilateral hand and wrist x-
rays were done on 3/8/22. The requested MRI exams are very reasonable looking for active erosions and 
synovial changes of rheumatoid arthritis. The MRI would be the best test available for this determination. 
 
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 MRI have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-approve 
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the hands/wrists for the enrollee.  
 
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: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the laboratory services provided on May 17, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the laboratory services. You say that you would like this claim reprocessed based 
on the medical records. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this claim has not been billed in 
accordance with Medicare rules. 
 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 laboratory 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 the laboratory services provided on May 17, 2021.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that the requested admission to a SNF is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested admission to a SNF does not meet 
criteria. 
 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 you do not have a need for intravenous 
medications, new tube feeding, ostomy care or daily complex wound care. Daily skilled services are required. 
Provided records do not document a significant decline in your functional status compared to your recent 
baseline to necessitate daily inpatient skilled therapy services. You do not require the services on an inpatient 
basis, only in a skilled nursing facility setting. Services in the home with home health care or in a long-term 
care facility on a part time basis appear appropriate in this case. 
 
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 skilled nursing facility (SNF) care.
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 reasonable and necessary. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says rules 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 the enrollee is an 89-year-old female long 
term care facility resident with a past medical history of dementia who presented to the acute hospital on April 
9, 2022, with altered mental status. In this case, there is no documentation that the patient requires skilled 
nursing services, i.e., the specialized skill, knowledge and judgment of a skilled professional nurse are not 
required to safely and effectively provide medically necessary and reasonable treatment. Records do not 
document the need for intravenous medications, new tube feeding or ostomy care or daily complex wound care. 
While this patient does require skilled therapy services, these services are not required on a daily basis. In 
conclusion, there is no documentation that the patient requires the services on an inpatient basis, only in a 
skilled nursing facility setting. Services in the long-term care facility on a part time basis appear appropriate in 
this case (if the patient is able to participate). 
 
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 admission to an inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) for 
the enrollee. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says care could be received 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 repair of nonunion of a previous fracture of the leg. 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 admission to an inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) for the enrollee.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the moderate sedation services (99153) provided on 
September 20, 2021. 
 
  You asked the Plan to pay for the moderate sedation services (99153). You say that the medical claim was 
billed correct using the correct Place of Service. You say that the medical records substantiate the place of 
service that performed, and payment should be reconsidered. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says CPT 
code 99153 may not be paid if furnished to a hospital inpatients or patients in a hospital outpatient department. 
 
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 99153 is moderate sedation services provided by the 
same physician or other qualified health care professional performing the diagnostic or therapeutic service that 
the sedation supports, requiring the presence of an independent trained observer to assist in the monitoring of 
the patient's level of consciousness and physiological status; each additional 15 minutes intraservice time (List 
separately in addition to code for primary service). 
 
We find that CPT code 99153 is not supported in the medical record. Specifically, CPT code 99153 is a TC 
only code and the claim indicates that this service was rendered in a facility setting. Payment for CPT code 
99153 is made to the facility and is the responsibility of the facility to any physician or vendor. Based on this 
information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the moderate sedation services (99153) have not 
been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the moderate sedation services (99153) 
provided on September 20, 2021.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve admission to an inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) for 
the enrollee. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says care could be received 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 weakness, urinary tract infection and L1 fracture after a fall. 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 admission to an inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) for the enrollee.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve pneumatic compression device to be provided by an 
out-of-network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve pneumatic compression device. You say that the service you provide is 
superior to the other options the enrollee has in their geographical area. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says the device has been requested from an out-of-network provider and this device can be obtained by an in-
network provider. 
 
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 pneumatic compression device to be provided by an out-of-network 
(OON) provider.