Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 99350 rendered on October 12, 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 99350 (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 99350 is "Home visit for the evaluation and management 
of an established patient, which requires at least 2 of these 3 key components: A comprehensive interval 
history; A comprehensive examination; Medical decision making of moderate to high complexity. Counseling 
and/or coordination of care with other physicians, other qualified health care professionals, or agencies are 
provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the 
presenting problem(s) are of moderate to high severity. The patient may be unstable or may have developed a 
significant new problem requiring immediate physician attention. Typically, 60 minutes are spent face-to-face 
with the patient and/or family." 
 
We asked our coder to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pay for the services. Our reviewer says that the services at issue in 
this case were not supported by the medical records. Our reviewer found that the records only support a 
problem-focused history and straightforward medical decision making. The code requires 2 of 3 key 
components, including a comprehensive history, comprehensive exam, and medical decision making 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 the services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pay for procedure code 99350 rendered on October 12, 2022.
Appeal type: Surgery
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 medical necessity has not been established. Therefore, coverage criteria 
have not been met. 
 
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 an Intracept procedure. Our reviewer 
says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the intracept procedure is experimental. More research is needed. 
 
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.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the special diabetic shoes and inserts (A5500 and 
A5513) to be provided by an out-of-network provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the out-of-network services. You say that the services are medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services are not medically necessary. 
 
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 
the special diabetic shoes and inserts (A5500 and A5513) to be provided by an out-of-network provider.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the home ventilator (E0466). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the home ventilator. You say that the ventilator is medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the ventilator is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that ventilators may be covered when they are medically 
necessary for patients who have neuromuscular disease, thoracic restrictive diseases, and chronic respiratory 
failure due to COPD. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the home ventilator. Our physician 
reviewer found the provided records document that the home ventilator is being requested for use in intelligent volume assured pressure support (iVAPS) mode with auto-titration (AE) which could be provided by a bilevel 
positive airway pressure (BiPAP) device with average volume assured pressure support (AVAPS) and a back-
up rate. The provided records do not document trial and failure of a BiPAP device with AVAPS and a back-up 
rate. 
 
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 home ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve the home ventilator (E0466).
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the home ventilator (E0466). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the home ventilator. You say that the ventilator is necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the ventilator is not necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that ventilators may be covered when they are medically 
necessary for patients who have neuromuscular disease, thoracic restrictive diseases, and chronic respiratory 
failure due to COPD. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the home ventilator. Our physician 
reviewer found there is no evidence this has been tried and failed as an outpatient. Medicare does not cover a home ventilator when used as settings that can be provided with bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP). 
 
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 home ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve the home ventilator (E0466).
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 99236 provided on September 12, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 99236. You say that the medical records support the billing of 
code 99236. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the medical records do not support the billing of code 
99236. 
 
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 99236 is Observation or inpatient hospital care, for the 
evaluation and management of a patient including admission and discharge on the same date, which requires 
these 3 key components: A comprehensive history; A comprehensive examination; and medical decision 
making of high complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other physicians, other qualified 
health care professionals, or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually the presenting problem(s) requiring admission are of high severity. Typically, 55 
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 procedure code 99236. Our reviewer says that the medical 
records do not support the billing of code 99236. Our reviewer found the documentation available for review 
does not support that the presenting problems were of high severity or that the medical decision was 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 procedure code 99236 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pay for procedure code 99236 provided on September 12, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for initial hospital care (procedure code 99221) rendered on 
August 15, 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 the documents do not support this level of care. 
 
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 99221 is "Initial hospital care, per day, for the evaluation 
and management of a patient, which requires these 3 key components: A detailed or comprehensive history; A 
detailed or comprehensive examination; and Medical decision making that is straightforward or of low 
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 problem(s) requiring admission are of low severity. Typically, 30 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 
does not support the CPT code 99221. The documentation does not appear to be for the initial hospital day and 
there is no comprehensive history. 
 
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 initial hospital care (procedure code 99221) rendered on August 15, 2022.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a ventilator. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a ventilator. You say that you disagree with the Plan's denial. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the requested device is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that ventilators may be covered when they are medically 
necessary for patients who have neuromuscular disease, thoracic restrictive diseases, and chronic respiratory 
failure due to COPD. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve a ventilator. Our reviewer says that the 
documentation does not support that the requested device is medically reasonable or necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee a diagnosis of chronic respiratory failure consequent to COPD. The documentation 
supports that the home ventilator is being requested for use with very low set tidal volumes (150 mL to 200 
mL) which could be provided by a bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) device with average volume 
assured pressure support (AVAPS) and a back-up rate. Provided records do not document compliance with use 
of the Life2000 device or trial and failure of a BiPAP device with AVAPS and a back-up rate. Therefore, the 
enrollee does not meet criteria for the requested device. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of a ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a ventilator.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an implantable neurostimulator electrode, each (L8680) 
and a percutaneous implantation of neurostimulator electrode array, epidural (63650). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve an implantable neurostimulator. You say that you disagree with the denial 
and request reconsideration. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request is not medically necessary 
because the records show that the enrollee does not have a condition for which this treatment is medically 
necessary. 
 
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 an implantable neurostimulator. Our 
reviewer says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this 
case. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has diabetic peripheral neuropathy affecting both of her legs. 
She is using Gabapentin and Venlafaxine for pain. She was seen by a clinical social worker for a psychological 
evaluation. This does not meet CMS criteria for approval. The enrollee does not have an evidence-based 
indication for a SCS trial. 
 
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 implantable neurostimulator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pre-approve an implantable neurostimulator electrode, each (L8680) and a 
percutaneous implantation of neurostimulator electrode array, epidural (63650).
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Hyalgan (J7321). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Hyalgan. You say that the only previous treatment that was effective for the 
enrollee was Hyalgan x5 bilateral. You also say that for this reason, you would like coverage to be 
reconsidered as this is medically necessary and effective therapy for the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says this request does not meet the Plan's Part B step therapy criteria for the requested 
viscosupplement device.  
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 reviewer says that the 
enrollee does not meet the coverage criteria for Hyalgan. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has not 
tried and failed the required drugs. Our reviewer also 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. 
 
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 (J7321).
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 is a fall risk for injuring and further 
endangering themself. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says admission to an 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 the complexity of the enrollees 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 
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 an IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Ethacrynic Acid 25MG tablet. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the medication. You say that the medication is medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says Ethacrynic Acid is a self-administered drug and does not fall under 
Part B coverage. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare Part B generally does not pay for self-
administered drugs. The self-administered drugs requested here are not among the types which are covered by Medicare Part B. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Ethacrynic Acid 25MG 
tablet.  
 
Benefits for the medication may be available under Medicare Part D. Contact the Plan that administers Part D 
benefits for further information concerning any benefits and appeal rights.
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 are requesting reconsideration for 
the denial of an LTACH admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says criteria for admission to the 
LTACH have not been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that LTACH services are covered if they are medically 
necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the LTACH services. Our reviewer 
says that the requested LTACH care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee does not require services at the LTACH that are not available at the acute 
care hospital where they are currently receiving care. The Plan has approved ongoing care in the current acute 
care setting. 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve injection(s), anesthetic agent(s) and/or steroid; 
transforaminal epidural, with imaging guidance (fluoroscopy or CT), lumbar or sacral, single level (64483) and 
injection(s), anesthetic agent(s) and/or steroid; transforaminal epidural, with imaging guidance (fluoroscopy or 
CT), lumbar or sacral, each additional level (64484) with an out-of-area (OOA) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve transforaminal epidural steroid injections. You say that your condition has 
not improved, and you want to continue getting treatment from this provider. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says the requested provider is OOA and not part of the Plan's preferred network. The provider is 
located outside of the service area (Massachusetts) and is not uniquely qualified to treat your lower back pain 
with radiculopathy. 
 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 transforaminal epidural steroid 
injections. Our reviewer says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and 
necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found the reviewed documentation indicates that there was no 
documentation from the provider that you were at risk for immediate hospitalization, unable to take po or 
complete ADL's. You state that you have been getting care for this condition in Massachusetts, so this was not 
an acute or emergent situation from documentation submitted. The review has determined that you could have 
foreseen requiring the services prior to leaving your service area. The records indicate that the care requested 
was medically necessary. It would have been medically reasonable to delay the services until the date when 
you returned to your service area. The Plan had approved 2 visits with the OOA provider which expired March 
2023. Both visits were used. You do not continue treatment with the OOA provider while in Florida. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of transforaminal epidural steroid injections have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve injection(s), anesthetic agent(s) and/or steroid; 
transforaminal epidural, with imaging guidance (fluoroscopy or CT), lumbar or sacral, single level (64483) and 
injection(s), anesthetic agent(s) and/or steroid; transforaminal epidural, with imaging guidance (fluoroscopy or 
CT), lumbar or sacral, each additional level (64484) with an out-of-area (OOA) provider.