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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the genetic testing provided on April 21, 2023, billed with 
codes 81201, 81292, 81218, 81295, 81298, 81307, 81317, 81321, 81351, 81314, 81334, 81345, 81272, and 
81479. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the genetic testing billed. You say that the use of the modifier was appropriate in 
this case. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says panel testing should be billed using one CPT code on the 
claim. 
 
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that if one laboratory procedure evaluates multiple genes 
using a next generation sequencing (NGS) procedure, the laboratory shall report only one unit of service of one 
genomic sequencing procedure, molecular multianalyte assay, multianalyte assay with algorithmic analysis, or 
proprietary laboratory analysis code. 
 
The file shows that a comprehensive cancer panel was provided. We looked at the file and Medicare rules. This 
NGS panel was not billed with a single code as required. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare 
rules for coverage of the genetic testing billed have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pay for the genetic testing provided on April 21, 2023, billed with codes 81201, 81292, 81218, 81295, 
81298, 81307, 81317, 81321, 81351, 81314, 81334, 81345, 81272, and 81479.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve CardioMEMS. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve CardioMEMS. You say that the CardioMEMS system is medically 
necessary for this patient due to his worsening heart failure. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
CardioMEMS device is considered investigational at this time and this patient is not enrolled in a clinical trial. 
 
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 CardioMEMS. Our reviewer says that 
the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. 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 patients 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 CardioMEMS have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve CardioMEMS.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve promethazine. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the medication. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the medication 
is not covered as a medical benefit under the Plan. 
 
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 promethazine.  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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a home ventilator. 
 
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. 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. Claims for ventilators used to provide CPAP or bi-level CPAP therapy will be denied as 
not reasonable and necessary. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve these services. Our reviewer says that 
the services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has severe chronic 
obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and was recently hospitalized for COPD exacerbation. There is no 
diagnosis of thoracic restrictive disease or neuromuscular disease. There is no documentation of chronic carbon 
dioxide retention with an arterial blood gas (ABG) study done while stable. The criteria for coverage are not 
met and the home ventilator is not reasonable or medically necessary. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of these services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a home ventilator.
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Prolia. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve Prolia. 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. 
 
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 Prolia. Our reviewer says that the 
services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the patient has not tried and failed the 
required drugs. There is no documentation provided indicating that the plan's 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 Prolia have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pre-approve Prolia.
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 admission is medically necessary for the 
enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's condition does not meet all of 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 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 is receiving appropriate care in current acute care setting as provided by 
the Plan. Documentation does not support that LTACH services are medically appropriate 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 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 LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that an LTACH placement is necessary for 
the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the criteria for an 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 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 is receiving appropriate care in the current acute care setting, as provided 
by the Plan The documentation does not support that LTACH services are medically appropriate 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 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 placement of an implanted loop recorder (ILR). 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve the requested ILR procedure. 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 ILR placement may be considered medically 
necessary when it is needed to evaluate syncope that is thought to be cardiac-related but occurs too infrequently 
to be detected by traditional external monitors.  
 
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 ILR procedure. Our 
reviewer says that the requested ILR procedure is not medically reasonable and necessary based on NCD 
criteria. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has a history of palpitations and supraventricular 
tachycardia (SVT). There is no documentation of unexplained syncope, cryptogenic stroke or any other 
apparent indication for an ILR. The ILR is not reasonable or medically necessary 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 the requested ILR procedure have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve placement of an implanted loop recorder (ILR).
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the urine polymerase chain reaction (PCR) panel provided on 
June 7, 2023, and billed with codes 87798, 87481, and 87150. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the urine PCR panel. You say that this testing was medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says this testing should be billed with a single panel code. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that a panel cannot be unbundled and billed as 
individual components. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. This test was not billed with a single panel code as required. Based 
on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the urine PCR panel have not been met. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the urine polymerase chain reaction (PCR) panel 
provided on June 7, 2023, and billed with codes 87798, 87481, and 87150.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the radiology services described by codes 74240, 74230, 
72040, 70100, and 70310 billed for date of service February 8, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the radiology services. You say that the radiology services should be paid as 
billed because each code reported was a distinctly different procedure and was medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the radiology services are denied because they were billed with an 
inappropriate POS. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that radiology services performed in the mobile 
setting are not eligible for reimbursement if they are listed in the Exclusions from Coverage as Portable X-Ray 
Services section of the Medicare Benefit Policy Manual. Medicare rules also state that claims must be billed 
with the appropriate POS.  
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Documentation provided shows codes 74240 and 72430 were 
performed in a mobile unit setting with the use of fluoroscopy. Therefore, they are not covered and are 
excluded under the portable x-ray provision. Codes 72040, 70100, and 70310 were billed with POS 21, 
indicating an inpatient hospital setting. However, documentation shows the radiology services were performed 
in a mobile setting. There is no evidence the services were provided in an inpatient hospital. Based on this 
information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the radiology services have not been met. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the radiology services described by codes 74240, 
74230, 72040, 70100, and 70310 billed for date of service February 8, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for code 99223 billed for date of service April 3, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for code 99223. You say that medical records have been provided to support 
payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says code 99223 is not supported by the medical record. The 
medical records don't support a high level of medical decision making or the total time required of the code 
billed. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate CPT code. 
 
In this case, the CPT Code Manual definition of code 99223 is Initial hospital inpatient or observation care, per 
day, for the evaluation and management of a patient, which requires a medically appropriate history and/or 
examination and high level of medical decision making. When using total time on the date of the encounter for 
code selection, 75 minutes must be met or exceeded.  
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 code 99223. Our reviewer says that code 99223 is not 
supported by the medical record. Our reviewer found the enrollee is a 60-year-old woman with history of 
obesity, mood disorder, and lymphedema, who presented with worsening leg swelling and weeping. In this 
case, the documentation supports an appropriate exam, but not an appropriate history or medical decision 
making of high 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 code 99223 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pay for code 99223 billed for date of service April 3, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the Outpatient Intravenous Insulin Therapy (OIVIT) services 
provided on June 27, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for OIVIT services. You say that the enrollee received infusions and pump 
maintenance. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services are not supported. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that OIVIT is not reasonable and necessary for any 
indication. Services comprising an Outpatient Intravenous Insulin Therapy regimen are nationally non-covered 
under Medicare when furnished pursuant to an OIVIT regimen.  
 
The CPT Code Manual definition of code 96521 is the refilling and maintenance of a portable pump. The 
documentation does show that an order was placed for this service. However, there are insufficient records to 
show that the services were actually provided. Based on this information, we decided the Medicare rules for 
coverage have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the Outpatient 
Intravenous Insulin Therapy (OIVIT) services provided on June 27, 2023.
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 the enrollee needs help getting in and out of the bed, 
using the restroom and help eating. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's condition does 
not meet all the requirements for continuation stay. 
 
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 the enrollee does not have daily skilled nursing needs that require the specialized 
skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional nurse. The enrollee does not have daily skilled therapy 
needs that require the specialized skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional therapist. The 
enrollee does not require daily skilled nursing and/or skilled therapy on an inpatient basis in a skilled nursing 
facility (SNF) 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 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve a RevoFit lower extremity adjustable prosthetic socket 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 that the services are 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 these services. Our reviewer says that 
the services are medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has quadrilateral amputations, 
including bilateral transtibial amputations, since 2019 in the setting of sepsis. Her existing sockets are ill-
fitting. The requested patient-adjustable closures are not considered experimental in nature and are reasonable 
and medically necessary for the enrollee, based on the submitted records. 
 
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 been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-
approve a RevoFit lower extremity adjustable prosthetic socket system.  
 
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 LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that an LTACH admission is essential for the 
enrollee, as she still requires daily physician monitoring. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
enrollee does not meet the required guidelines for an 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 that the enrollee is receiving appropriate care in the current acute care setting as 
provided by the plan. The documentation does not support that LTACH services are medically appropriate 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 the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve LTACH services.