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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the skilled nursing facility (SNF) services requested do not meet the requirements for 
approval. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for care in a SNF when the four factors 
listed in the Medicare rules section are met. Custodial care is not covered. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve SNF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested SNF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found that the clinical documentation shows that the enrollee's past level of function was 
modified independent with mobility and self-care tasks without any current assessment of mobility and self 
care tasks thus without daily inpatient skilled therapy goals. The clinical documentation does not specify any 
daily skilled nursing needs thus daily skilled services are not supported. As a practical matter, clinical 
documentation does not support the medical necessity of daily skilled services on an inpatient basis in a skilled 
nursing facility. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of SNF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a CardioMEMS device (33289). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a CardioMEMS device. 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 a CardioMEMS device. Our reviewer 
says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found 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 device have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve a CardioMEMS device (33289).
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve SNF care. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that SNF care would help you return to a normal life.  
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested SNF services are not reasonable or necessary.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for care in a SNF when the four factors 
listed in the Medicare rules section are met. Custodial care is not covered. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve SNF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested SNF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found that the clinical documentation does not specify any daily skilled nursing needs thus 
daily skilled services are not supported. As a practical matter, the clinical documentation does not support the 
medical necessity of daily skilled services on an inpatient basis in a skilled nursing facility. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of SNF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve SNF care.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for urinalysis, by dip stick or tablet reagent for bilirubin, 
glucose, hemoglobin, ketones, leukocytes, nitrite, pH, protein, specific gravity, urobilinogen, any number of 
these constituents; automated, without microscopy (procedure code 81003-59) performed on August 4, 2023. 
 
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 Procedure Terminology (CPT) code 81003-59 (1 Unit) remains not supported. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules state that providers may bill services with a -59 modifier if the 
service billed with the modifier indicates a distinct procedural service.   
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pay for the services. Our reviewer says that the 
services at issue in this case were not supported by the medical records. Our physician reviewer found that CPT code 81003 has a bundled relationship with CPT code 81001 which was also performed on August 4, 2023. 
NCCI rules states the use of a modifier is allowed to unbundle this relationship, providing the medial 
documentation support the use of an appropriate modifier. In this case, the medical records provided does not 
include sufficient documentation to validate that CPT 81003 was a procedure that was distinct or independent 
from the other services performed on August 4, 2023, therefore the use of the 59 modifier is not appropriate.  
 
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 urinalysis, by dip stick or tablet reagent for bilirubin, glucose, hemoglobin, ketones, leukocytes, 
nitrite, pH, protein, specific gravity, urobilinogen, any number of these constituents; automated, without 
microscopy (procedure code 81003-59) performed on August 4, 2023.
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 LTACH admission is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the criteria for the LTACH 
admission. 
 
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 appears to be improving with current treatment and should only require 
short-term additional acute care services that can safely be provided at the current facility until more stable and 
appropriate for transfer to a lower level of care soon. The enrollee does not require services at the LTACH that 
are not already available at the current facility.  
 
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 these services are medically necessary for the 
enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the required services can be provided in an alternate 
setting.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee's medical complexity does not require an acute hospital inpatient stay 
with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The enrollee does not require an intensive 
rehabilitation therapy, and it is unclear if they would tolerate. There is not a reasonable expectation that the 
enrollee will be able to benefit from the intensive rehabilitation 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code S9328 billed for date of service September 
10, 2023, to September 23, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code S9328. You say that the claim should be paid. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the billed code is invalid for Medicare purposes.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate procedure code. 
 
We find that procedure code S9328 has a Status Indicator of I on the Physician Fee Schedule. This means that procedure code S9328 is not valid for Medicare purposes. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare 
rules for coverage of procedure code S9328 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pay for procedure code S9328 billed for date of service September 10, 2023, to September 23, 2023.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve a Ganglion Impar Block (64999). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a Ganglion Impar Block. You say that this service is necessary and 
appropriate for this enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that this service is not considered a 
standard or approved medical treatment, and therefore this service is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that if there are no specific coverage rules for an item 
or service, then that item or service will be covered when it is medically necessary.  
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve a Ganglion Impar Block. Our reviewer 
says that the requested items/services are considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee had a sudden onset of coccydynia. The enrollee has failed oral 
medication trials. Ganglion Impar Block is requested. This is standard of care for coccydynia; therefore, it is 
medically reasonable and 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 a Ganglion Impar Block have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has 
to pre-approve a Ganglion Impar Block (64999).  
 
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 acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee is off IV treatment, so acute care 
treatment is now complete. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee must have completed the 
full course of treatment in the referring hospital.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The medical 
records support a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive 
rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different level of care. It 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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve irreversible electroporation. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve irreversible electroporation. You say that the procedure requested is 
necessary to treat the enrollee's cancer diagnosis. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested 
procedure does not meet the requirements for approval. 
 
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 irreversible electroporation. Our 
reviewer says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this 
case. Our physician reviewer found based on the medical records provided, there is no documentation that the 
irreversible electroporation at issue in this case meets all Medicare criteria for medically reasonable and 
necessary for the enrollee. Provided medical records and review of the current peer-reviewed medical literature 
do not document that use of irreversible electroporation has been shown in controlled studies in a CMS-
approved journal to result in sustained long-term health benefits in the Medicare population with prostate 
cancer. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of irreversible electroporation have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve irreversible electroporation.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a pneumatic compressor and full leg segmental gradient 
pressure pneumatic appliance to be provided by an OON provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a pneumatic compressor and gradient pressure appliance. You say that the 
enrollee would face obstacles that would impair her healing if forced to use an in-network provider. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the requested items are available with in-network providers. 
 
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 
a pneumatic compressor and full leg segmental gradient pressure pneumatic appliance to be provided by an 
OON provider.
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 admission is medically necessary for the enrollee 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's condition does not meet all the requirements for 
inpatient rehabilitation admission. The Plan says services may 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. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The medical 
records support a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive 
rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different level of care. It 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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a revascularization procedure by an out-of-network 
(OON) provider.  
 
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 available from network providers. 
 
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 
a revascularization procedure by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for evaluation and management services (procedure code 99214) 
rendered on August 17, 2023. 
 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 there was a low risk of morbidity without additional treatment, and the enrollee was referred to a 
specialist for another visit. 
 
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 99214 is "Office or other outpatient visit for the 
evaluation and management of an established patient, which requires a medically appropriate history and/or 
examination and moderate level of medical decision making. When using time for code selection, 30-39 
minutes of total time is spent on the date of the encounter." 
 
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 enrollee presented for 
evaluation of hand pain. The documentation supports an appropriate exam, but not an appropriate history or 
medical decision making of moderate level. 
 
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 evaluation and management services (procedure code 99214) rendered on August 17, 2023.