Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for the FoundationOne CDx (F1CDx) testing provided on April 11, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for F1CDx testing. You say that you would like this claim reprocessed and approved 
for payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that there is a Local Coverage Determination (LCD) 
that indicates that any panel that tests for the FANCC gene is noncovered. They argue that since this panel 
includes that specific gene, the denial is correct. 
 
We reviewed the LCD cited by the Plan but find that it is not applicable to an FDA-approved test, as these are 
covered via the NCD cited in the Medicare rules section. An LCD cannot limit coverage allowed by an NCD, 
per the Medicare hierarchy of authority. As such, we disregarded the LCD cited by the Plan. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that Medicare nationally covers FDA-approved NGS 
testing, such as the F1CDx panel, when provided for an FDA-approved indication.  
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. This testing was provided to a patient with a solid tumor. The FDA 
approval notice indicates that this panel is approved for solid tumors. No other valid denial rationale was 
presented by the Plan. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of F1CDx 
testing have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for the FoundationOne CDx (F1CDx) 
testing provided on April 11, 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) and related 
supplies. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a CGM and related supplies. You say that the requested items are medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the criteria for coverage have not been met. 
 
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 a 
CGM and related supplies have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve 
a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) and related supplies.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 70450 billed for date of service April 20, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 70450. You say that you would like this claim reprocessed and 
approved for payment. 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 April 20, 2022.
Appeal type: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve additional non-emergency transportation. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve additional non-emergency transportation. You say that you have medical 
appointments and have no way to get to them. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says your benefit only 
allows 24 trips, and as of August 4, 2022, you only had one trip remaining. The Plan also says that this request 
is not covered. 
 
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 up to 24 one-way trips per year.  
 We looked at your request, the records in the case file, and the rules. Based on this information, we decided 
that you will have exhausted the Plan maximum benefit for coverage of routine transportation. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve additional non-emergency transportation.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Perjeta. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Perjeta. 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 must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for a drug or biological only if it is safe 
and effective and otherwise reasonable and 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 Perjeta. Our reviewer says that the 
services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the Medicare approved cancer drug 
compendia do not contain a supportive citation for the use of the requested drug regimen in the enrollee's 
clinical situation. No literature from Medicare approved cancer journals were submitted for review. The 
elements of the coverage criteria are not satisfied. The requested service cannot be recommended. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Perjeta have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pre-approve Perjeta.
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 appealing with supporting records. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the denial of authorization for IRF care 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 enrollee does not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary 
approach to rehabilitation care. While the enrollee may need physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a continuous glucose monitor (CGM.) 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a CGM. You say that the records provided support that a CGM is medically 
necessary for the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the criteria for coverage have not been 
met. 
 
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 a 
CGM have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a continuous 
glucose monitor (CGM.)
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 71046 billed for date of service July 20, 
2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 71046. You say that you disagree with the Plan's denial. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says payment for code 71046 is bundled into payment for code 71101. 
 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 71046 
is a column II code to column I code 71101. 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 71046 billed for date of service July 20, 2021.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you prefer to go to the IRF to participate in 
aggressive rehabilitation. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that you do not meet the Medicare 
criteria for IRF 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 found to be medically reasonable and necessary for this enrollee. Our physician reviewer 
found you have multiple active comorbidities and a spinal cord injury, thus would benefit from close medical 
monitoring on an inpatient basis by a rehabilitation physician. Your evaluating therapists recommend that you 
would tolerate intensive therapy and that this is medically necessary. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-approve 
acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.  
 
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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an implantable loop recorder (ILR) for the enrollee. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve these services. You say that these services are medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says that routine use of ILR's to detect atrial fibrillation in order to guide 
anticoagulation decisions is not supported by randomized trial data or by the most recent Heart Rhythm Society 
recommendations. 
 
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 these services. Our reviewer says that 
the requested services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. While the patient has 
a history of atrial fibrillation/flutter, there is no documentation provided to suggest a history of unexplained 
syncope or any other apparent indication for an ILR. In summary, there is insufficient documentation to 
support the medical necessity for insertion of an ILR in this patients clinical management. Our physician 
reviewer found that the enrollee's condition does not meet criteria for coverage of these 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 these services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve an implantable loop recorder (ILR) for the enrollee.
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 enrollee's complex needs cannot be 
met at a lower level of care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says based on Medicare guidelines, the 
requested LTACH services do not meet the requirements for approval. 
 
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 all medically necessary care is being provided in the current acute care setting. 
There are no services available at the LTACH that the enrollee requires that are not available at the health care 
setting being offered by the Plan. The Plan has approved ongoing care in the current acute care setting. The 
requested LTACH services are not medically necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and 
condition of the enrollee and able to be furnished safely and effectively only on an inpatient basis. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you will benefit from IRF care that cannot be 
accomplished at a lower level of care The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an intensive rehabilitation 
program 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. Medical problems are 
stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. While the documentation does support a need for 
physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for an intensive, multi-disciplinary 
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: 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 authorization denied because the IRF care is not 
medically necessary, and your needs can be met at a lower level of care, such as a skilled nursing facility 
(SNF). The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you want to be admitted to the IRF. 
 
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 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 the medical record supports a need for physical 
and/or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive rehabilitation 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for Synvisc (J7325) billed on December 17, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for Synvisc (J7325). The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the records do not 
support the number of units billed. 
 
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 J7325 is Hyaluronan or derivative, synvisc or synvisc-
one, for intra-articular injection, 1 mg. 
 
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 Synvisc (J7325). Our reviewer says that the documentation 
submitted was reviewed and does not meet the criteria for coverage. Our reviewer found that the procedure 
report does not include documentation of dosage. Therefore, the 48 units billed cannot be verified. 
 
 
  We looked at this coder's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Synvisc (J7325) have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pay for Synvisc (J7325) billed on December 17, 2021.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the laboratory services provided on February 24, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the laboratory services. You say that you would like this claim reprocessed and 
approved for payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the provider has not billed in accordance 
with Medicare billing regulations. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Medicare rules say that specimen validity testing is not covered separately. 
 
The services at issue in this case are for the purpose of specimen validity testing. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the laboratory services have not been met. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan does not have to pay for the laboratory services provided on February 24, 2022.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services for the 
enrollee. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the enrollee is suitable and stable for 
transfer to an LTACH. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the member is receiving appropriate 
in-patient acute care and is currently unstable for transfer to an LTACH. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that LTACH services are covered if they are medically 
necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the LTACH services. Our reviewer says 
that the requested LTACH care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. The enrollee 
does not require services at the LTACH that are not available at the acute care hospital where he is currently 
receiving care. All medically necessary care is being provided in the current acute care setting. Our physician 
reviewer found that the enrollee's condition does not meet Medicare criteria for LTACH services. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services for the enrollee.