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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Cardiac Catheterization (93458). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Cardiac Catheterization. You say that this service is medically necessary. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says coverage criteria has 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 Cardiac Catheterization. Our reviewer 
says that the requested services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the medical records provided do not support the rationale for this invasive imaging 
study. Guidelines do not support a need for cardiac catheterization in this 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 Cardiac Catheterization have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve Cardiac Catheterization (93458).
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Minuteman G3-R MIS Fusion Plate fusion. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the surgery. You say that the plan's denial is unwarranted and unsupported 
by the enrollee's current medical status. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this is experimental and 
investigational. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that items and services that are not medically 
necessary are not covered.  
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the surgery. Our reviewer says that the 
requested services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer 
found that the Minuteman fusion plate 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 the surgery have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve the Minuteman G3-R MIS Fusion Plate fusion.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Botox. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Botox. You say that the requested Botox is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee must try and fail 1 urinary anticholinergic and Myrbetriq first. 
 
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 Botox. Our reviewer says that the Plan's 
step therapy criteria have not been met. Our physician reviewer found the record indicates that the enrollee has 
overactive bladder. The requested medication is a new start. The provided records do not indicate that the 
enrollee has tried and failed the plan's preferred step one alternative. The record does not indicate that the 
enrollee has a contraindication to or would have an adverse effect from the plan's preferred step one alternative. 
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 Botox have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pre-approve Botox.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for radiological services provided on October 19, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for radiology services provided. You say that the claim was billed correctly and 
should be paid. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this is a non-covered service. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that procedures requiring the administration of a 
substance to the patient or injection of a substance into the patient and/or special manipulation of the patient are 
not covered under portable x-ray provision. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of radiology services provided have not been met. The procedure is a barium swallow study, and this 
means that it involves the administration of a substance to the enrollee. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pay for radiological services provided on October 19, 2022.
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 require services to regain maximum function. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services you need can be provided safely in another setting 
such as a skilled nursing facility or home with home health services. 
 
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 you do 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: 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 have severe arthritis and due to the urinary tract 
infection, and you are not capable of functioning at all. You say you will need to stay in acute rehabilitation. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 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. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section.  
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found you were admitted for weakness and a urinary tract infection. 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: 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 every day that the enrollee lies in a hospital bed, they 
are losing more stability to gain function. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services the enrollee 
needs can be provided safely in another setting such as a skilled nursing facility. 
 
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: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for validity testing billed with code 83789 for date(s) of service 
November 4, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for code 83789. You say that this service is medically necessary and should be paid. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says code 83789 is not separately payable. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers performing validity testing on urine 
specimens utilized for drug testing should not separately bill the validity testing. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of code 83789 have not been met. Specifically, we find that the testing described by code 83789 is not 
separately payable. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for validity testing billed with 
code 83789 for date(s) of service November 4, 2022.
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 is on dialysis and has received previous 
help from inpatient rehab. If they go to a skilled nursing facility, they will have to be transported for dialysis 
and they do not want this. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services the enrollee needs can be 
provided safely in another setting such as a skilled nursing facility. 
 
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 procedure code 0003A billed for date of service May 5, 
2022. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 0003A. You say that this claim should be paid. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the number of units billed exceeds the maximum allowed. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that claims submitted where the unit of service 
exceeds the MUE value cannot be paid when the MAI value is 2.  
 
In this case, the MUE for CPT code 0003A is 1. The MAI value for this code is 2. You billed 2 units of this 
code, exceeding the MUE. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of 
procedure code 0003A have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for 
procedure code 0003A billed for date of service May 5, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 0003A billed for date of service February 26, 
2022. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 0003A. You say that this claim should be paid. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the number of units billed exceeds the maximum allowed. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that claims submitted where the unit of service 
exceeds the MUE value cannot be paid when the MAI value is 2.  
 
In this case, the MUE for CPT code 0003A is 1. The MAI value for this code is 2. You billed 2 units of this 
code, exceeding the MUE. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of 
procedure code 0003A have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for 
procedure code 0003A billed for date of service February 26, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 0003A billed for date of service March 4, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 0003A. You say that this claim should be paid. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the number of units billed exceeds the maximum allowed.  
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that claims submitted where the unit of service 
exceeds the MUE value cannot be paid when the MAI value is 2.  
 
In this case, the MUE for CPT code 0003A is 1. The MAI value for this code is 2. You billed 2 units of this 
code, exceeding the MUE. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of 
procedure code 0003A have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for 
procedure code 0003A billed for date of service March 4, 2022.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for the disposable contact lenses provided on November 30, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the disposable contact lenses. You say that you had no previous services that 
could have resulted in a maximum benefit denial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the benefit 
has been exhausted. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare health plans must make reasonable and 
diligent efforts to gather and forward to the IRE information regarding its decision to deny coverage or 
payment. 
 
The Plan has not made reasonable and diligent efforts to gather and forward to us information regarding their 
decision to deny your request. The Plan did not send documentation showing that the Plan paid for prior vision 
services. This means we cannot confirm that the benefit has been exhausted. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan has to pay for the disposable contact lenses provided on November 30, 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: 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 enrolleer needs LTACH ventilator 
weaning, neuro check and cardiac monitoring. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's 
records do not show the need for LTACH, continued care needs include skilled nursing and therapy. 
 
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 
current acute care hospital. 
 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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Coflex interlaminar device (22867, 22868). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the surgical procedure. You say that it is your clinical opinion that direct 
decompression and interlaminar stabilization device placement (Coflex) is the most appropriate treatment for 
the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the scientific literature does not show that the use of 
indirect decompression with the Coflex procedure has equivalent success to laminectomy alone. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that items and services that are not medically 
necessary are not covered.  
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the surgical procedure. Our reviewer 
says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the Coflex interlaminar device is experimental. High failure rates have been reported 
with similar devices.  
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 surgical procedure have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve the Coflex interlaminar device (22867, 22868).
Appeal type: Other
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a flex walk prosthetic system described by codes L5981 
and L5986. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the requested prosthetic components. You say that this should be approved 
due to medical necessity. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not have the functional 
abilities required for the requested items. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that prostehtic components are covered when the enrollee 
meets the related functional ability requirements.  
 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the requested prosthetic components. 
Our reviewer says that the records do not support the medical necessity of the requested prosthetic components. 
Our physician reviewer found the advanced ankle and foot is not medically necessary. The documentation does 
not support that the patient is a level 3 ambulator. The enrollee has been approved for a Group 2 power 
wheelchair due to inability to complete activities of daily living without a power mobility device. The medical 
documentation states the enrollee is unable to use a walker, cane, or manual wheelchair due to bilateral 
amputations, desaturation with exertion, and pain. The requested components would exceed the medical need. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the requested prosthetic components have not been met. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a flex walk prosthetic system described by codes L5981 and L5986.
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 an expedited 
reconsideration for the denial of an LTACH admission. You say the LTACH is the appropriate level of care, 
and the enrollee is medically stable to be transferred to the LTACH level of care at this time. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the guidelines for care in 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. 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.