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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that these services are medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says that your ongoing skilled therapy and nursing needs can be provided at a 
lower level of care. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. The 
complexity of your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. You were admitted for abdominal pain and back pain. 
Your medical problems are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. You do not require 
treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive 
rehabilitation therapy program. While you have a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no 
documentation of a 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. Our physician reviewer found that your condition does not meet Medicare criteria for IRF 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 the laboratory services provided on January 11, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the laboratory services. You say that you would like these services reprocessed 
and approved for payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says these services have not been billed 
appropriately based on Medicare billing regulations. 
 
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 January 11, 2021.
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 submitted documentation supports a 
LTACH placement. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee is receiving appropriate in-patient 
acute care and does not require transfer to a 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 she is currently receiving care. Our reviewer found that 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 health 
plan. The health plan has approved ongoing care in the current acute care facility. Our physician reviewer also 
found that 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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a CardioMEMs system. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve these services. You say that you disagree with the denial. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the services are not 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 these services. Our reviewer says that 
the services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the clinical study on which the 
CardioMEMs received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval showed improved clinical outcomes 
and decreased hospitalizations in patients in whom the CardioMEMS system was implanted, reflecting a 
patient population with preserved ejection fraction and was somewhat limited in scope. There is a lack of 
blinded clinical studies examining long-term clinical outcomes establishing the value of the device. The 
services are not medically appropriate and not reasonable or medically necessary at this time. 
 
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 a CardioMEMs system.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for acupuncture services provided to the enrollee on November 
8, 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 denial is based on a non-covered provider type. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that acupuncture services are not covered by Medicare. 
However, for services provided on or after January 21, 2020, Medicare offers limited coverage for acupuncture 
treatments for CLBP meeting certain requirements, up to 12 sessions per 90-day period, and no more than 20 
sessions per year.   
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that the rules for coverage of 
the acupuncture services have not been met. Specifically, the services were provided by a licensed 
acupuncturist, and not a physician. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for acupuncture 
services provided to the enrollee on November 8, 2021.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the services are 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 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 have a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documentation of a 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: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve physical therapy (PT) services (G0151) and skilled 
nursing services (G0299). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the PT and skilled nursing services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says the continuation of home health care services that you are requesting does not meet the requirements for 
approval. 
 
  The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that home health care services may be covered if it is 
medically necessary for the enrollee to receive skilled nursing or therapy. A doctor must certify the need for 
home health care services. 
 
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 PT and skilled nursing services. Our 
reviewer says that continued PT and skilled nursing services are not medically reasonable and necessary for the 
enrollee. Our physician reviewer found there is no documentation that further skilled home health nursing 
services are required to effectively provide treatment, care, and/or services in order to improve the enrollee's 
condition, or to establish/perform a maintenance program to maintain the enrollee's condition and/or prevent 
deterioration. 
 
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 PT and skilled nursing services have not been met. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan does not have to pre-approve physical therapy (PT) services (G0151) and skilled nursing services 
(G0299).
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a CardioMEMS HF system. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a CardioMEMS HF system. You say that the requested CardioMEMS HF 
system is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested CardioMEMS HF 
system is not 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 a CardioMEMS HF system. Our 
reviewer says that the requested CardioMEMS HF system is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer 
found the CardioMEMS device was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2014 and 
consists of a sensor device placed in the pulmonary artery to allow measurement of pulmonary artery pressure 
in the management of patients with congestive heart failure (CHF). The clinical study on which FDA approval 
was based showed improved clinical outcomes and decreased hospitalizations in patients in whom the 
CardioMEMS system was implanted, reflecting a patient population with preserved ejection fraction and was 
somewhat limited in scope. Subsequent follow-up studies remain encouraging and suggest an improvement in heart failure symptoms with the use of the device. In addition, published expert opinion in the cardiology 
literature is supportive of the clinical usefulness of CardioMEMS.  Nonetheless, there remains a dearth of 
randomized, blinded clinical studies examining long-term clinical outcomes establishing the value of 
CardioMEMS in patient management. As a result, at this time the CardioMEMS system would not be 
considered medically appropriate and necessary in this enrollees clinical management. 
 
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 CardioMEMS HF system have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve a CardioMEMS HF system.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for molecular pharmacogenetic testing (CPT code(s): 81240, 
81241, 81291, 81408, 81249, and 81230) provided on September 26, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the laboratory services. You say that the claim should be paid. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the services are not covered as 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. 
 
The member had molecular pharmacogenetic testing on September 26, 2021. The denial remains upheld as 
non-covered as Medicare denies coverage when a laboratory assays two or more genes in a patient in parallel. 
Those two or more genes will be considered part of the same panel. A panel constitutes a single procedural 
service, so one CPT code must be submitted for the panel. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pay for molecular pharmacogenetic testing (CPT code(s): 81240, 81241, 81291, 81408, 81249, and 81230) 
provided on September 26, 2021.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the services (99153) provided on August 4, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this service is not 
payable. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that the OPPS recognizes that CPT code 99153 is a 
practice expense (PE) only code and is not paid to the physician in the facility setting.  
 
We find that payment for CPT code 99153 is not supported. Specifically, there is no separate payment for CPT 
code 99153 for services provided in the facility setting. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pay for the anesthesia services (99153) provided on September 18, 2020. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pay for the services (99153) provided on August 4, 2021.
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 IRF is medically necessary for the enrollee to 
continue on with her progress. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the criteria for admission to the 
Acute Inpatient Rehabilitation setting have not been met. 
 
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 patient's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. Our reviewer 
found that the patient does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or 
occupational therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While the patient has a need for physical 
and/or occupational therapy, there is no documentation of a need for an intensive rehabilitation program. Our 
physician reviewer also found that there is not a reasonable expectation that this patient will be able to fully 
participate in and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for laboratory services provided to the enrollee on December 2, 
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 genetic testing procedures submitted with code 81455 are unlikely to impact therapeutic 
decision-making in the clinical management of the patient. 
 
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 pay for the services. Our reviewer says that the 
requested services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer 
found the enrollee is an 81-year-old woman with a diagnosis of endometrial cancer. The testing is used to 
identify molecular abnormalities in DNA of 434 genes and RNA in 1,385 genes, with a focus on 55 genes 
implicated in solid tumors. The limited documentation does not support that the genetic testing in this case 
would directly impact the treatment being delivered to the enrollee. There is no evidence that a definitive 
diagnosis remains uncertain after history, physical examination, pedigree analysis, genetic counseling, and 
completion of conventional diagnostic studies. 
 
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 services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pay for laboratory services provided to the enrollee on December 2, 2021.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve Supartz injections for both knees. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Supartz injections. You say that the requested injections are medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the enrollee has not tried and failed Euflexxa or 
Durolane. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare health plans must establish policies and 
procedures to educate enrollees concerning its step therapy practices. 
 
The Plan has not disclosed that Part B drugs may be subject to step therapy requirements. Specifically, the file 
does not indicate that the Evidence of Coverage does not include information disclosing the step therapy 
requirements. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-approve Supartz injections for both knees.  
 
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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a genicular nerve block procedure (64454). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the genicular nerve block procedure. You say that this procedure 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 the genicular nerve block procedure. 
Our reviewer says that the requested services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this 
case. Our physician reviewer found genicular nerve blocks and genicular nerve radiofrequency ablation are 
considered investigational and not medically necessary for the treatment of chronic knee pain. 
 
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 genicular nerve block procedure have not been met. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a genicular nerve block procedure (64454).
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 need physical and occupational therapy so that 
you can regain your strength as soon as possible and get back home. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says that your medical condition is stable and does not require medical monitoring by a rehabilitation doctor. 
 
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. 
 The complexity of your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not require an acute hospital inpatient stay 
with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. You were admitted for surgical repair of a hip fracture 
after a fall. Your medical problems are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. You do 
not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an 
intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While you have a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there 
is no documentation of a 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. Our physician reviewer found that your condition does not meet Medicare criteria for IRF 
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.