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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 87640 billed for date of service January 23, 
2023. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 87640. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says payment for 
code 87640 is bundled into payment for code 87641. 
 
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, we have confirmed that code 87640 
is a column II code to column I code 87641. Based on the claim submitted, Medicare billing criteria have not 
been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 87640 billed for date of 
service January 23, 2023.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an osteogenesis stimulator (E0760). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve an osteogenesis stimulator. You say that you are requesting reconsideration 
due to medical necessity. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the records do not show at least two sets 
of x-rays, with at least 90 days in between x-rays, showing no significant evidence of healing of the bone. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that items and services that are not medically 
necessary are not covered.  
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve an osteogenesis stimulator. 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 inadequate and inconsistent 
documentation of your bone healing status to meet Medicare criteria for coverage of the osteogenesis 
stimulator. Records as of January 2, 2024, at the same time report "interval healing humeral shaft fracture," 
"some evidence of bone healing on your x-rays" and "delayed union/nonunion of humerus fracture." 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of an osteogenesis stimulator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve an osteogenesis stimulator (E0760).
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Vyndamax. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Vyndamax. You say that the drug is medically necessary for treatment. 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 Vyndamax.   
Benefits for Vyndamax 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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the CardioMEMS device. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the CardioMEMS device. You say that the CardioMEMS device is 
medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there is not enough evidence showing the 
requested device would improve the outcome for the enrollee's condition. 
 
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 CardioMEMS device. Our reviewer 
says that the requested the CardioMEMS device is not considered medically reasonable and necessary. Our 
physician reviewer found that 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 the CardioMEMS device have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve the CardioMEMS device.
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 would like to request reconsideration of the 
denied IRF services and that the services requested are medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The 
Plan says the inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) services you are requesting do not meet the requirements for 
approval.  
 
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. 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 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 LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the enrollee is stable yet has strong 
criteria for LTACH admission and is ready to transition to that level of care. The Plan denied your request. The 
Plan says they will continue to cover medically necessary acute and critical care at the current facility until the 
member's condition is stable for transfer to an alternate level of care (such as a skilled nursing facility), or until 
the clinical circumstances change such that LTACH may be reconsidered. 
 
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. 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. Given there are offered alternatives, LTACH is not 
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 the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve 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 based on the enrollee's current condition and 
functional deficits, as well as their multiple comorbidities, they meet full IRF criteria. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the enrollee's ongoing skilled therapy and nursing needs can be provided at a lower level 
of care, such as a skilled nursing facility (SNF), on an intermittent basis at home with home health care, or in a 
long-term care 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 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 enrollee's 
medical problems are stable and there are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. The enrollee does 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. Medically necessary 
care can be provided in a different level of care. There is not a reasonable expectation that the enrollee will be 
able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a repeat caudal epidural steroid injection (ESI) (62323). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a repeat ESI. You say that the enrollee is unable to sit or lay down in the 
morning due to pain. You say that the enrollee's pain worsens with rest, sitting, or laying down. You say that it 
is improved with ambulation, stretching, and pain medication. You also say that with the pain relief, the 
enrollee is able to perform activities of daily living (ADLs). The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
notes do not show at least 50% of sustained improvement in pain relief and/or improvement in function 
measured from baseline using the same scale for at least three months following the most recent ESI. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that a repeat epidural steroid injection (ESI) may be 
medically reasonable and necessary when the first injection directly and significantly provided improvement of the condition being treated may be considered medically reasonable and necessary when the medical record 
documents at least 50% of sustained improvement in pain relief and/or improvement in function measured from 
baseline using the same scale for at least three months. 
 
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 repeat ESI. Our reviewer says that the 
requested repeat ESI is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the record documents that the 
enrollee had less than a 50% of sustained improvement in pain relief and/or improvement in function measured 
from baseline using the same scale for at least three months or that a different approach, level and/or 
medication is being used. Therefore, the reviewer found that the requested repeat ESI is not medically 
reasonable or 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 repeat ESI have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a repeat caudal epidural steroid injection (ESI) (62323).
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a genicular nerve block (64454). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the nerve block. You say that this is medically necessary for the enrollee. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this 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 the nerve block. Our reviewer says that 
the requested genicular nerve block is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found this is considered experimental/ investigational therapy. Therefore, the request is not 
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 the nerve block have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a genicular nerve block (64454).
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the porcelain/ceramic retainer crowns (D6740 x 2) and the 
pontic-porcelain fused to high noble metal (D6240) provided on August 9, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for these dental items. You say that you are requesting a reconsideration of the Plan's 
denial for payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the dental items provided in this case are not 
covered under the supplemental dental policy. 
 
Medicare generally does not cover dental services. However, the Plan offers a dental benefit that exceeds 
Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plans coverage rules apply in this case. 
 
Though the Plan offers a dental benefit in excess of Medicare coverage, the dental items provided are not 
among those covered under this benefit.  
  
 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the porcelain/ceramic retainer crowns (D6740 x 2) 
and the pontic-porcelain fused to high noble metal (D6240) provided on August 9, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 99233 billed for date of service March 22, 
2023.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 99233. You say that the enrollee was seen by several different 
providers on the same date of service. 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 submitted claims in which the unit of service 
exceeds the MUE value cannot be paid when the MAI value is 3, unless there is evidence justifying the excess 
units.  
 
In this case, the MUE for CPT code 99233 is 1. The MAI value for this code is 3. You billed 2 units of this 
code, exceeding the MUE. You did not provide all the required evidence showing that the excess units were 
actually provided, were correctly coded, and were medically necessary. Based on this information, we decided 
that Medicare rules for coverage of procedure code 99233 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 99233 billed for date of service March 22, 2023.
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 are requesting reconsideration of denied 
authorization. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 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 there is concern that the enrollee is not stable for discharge from the acute hospital 
due to ongoing hypotension. The enrollee does require physical therapy and occupational therapy services, 
however, the provided medical records do not support that the intensive inpatient rehabilitation therapy 
program is necessary. There is concern that the enrollee will not be able to fully participate in and benefit from 
the intensive rehabilitation therapy program. The enrollee can receive further services at a lower 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 LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the enrollee requires a LTACH 
admission to get the professional wound care services that a lower level of care cannot provide. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the request is not medically necessary. 
 
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 does not require services at the LTACH that are not available at the 
acute care hospital where they are currently receiving care. All medically necessary care is being provided in 
the current acute care setting.  
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve LTACH services.
Appeal type: ER
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for lab services (80320, 82140, 80053, 85027, 83690, 83735, 
81003, 85610) provided on July 31, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the lab services. You say that this service was medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the claim cannot be paid 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. 
 
We find that CPT codes 80320, 82140, 80053, 85027, 83690, 83735, 81003, & 85610 are not supported in the 
medical record. Specifically, the billed codes were billed with an inappropriate modifier (26). Based on this 
information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the lab services have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for lab services (80320, 82140, 80053, 85027, 83690, 83735, 81003, 
85610) provided on July 31, 2023.
Appeal type: Outpatient Mental Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for psychotherapy and psychiatric diagnostic evaluation 
provided on July 20, 2023, to September 06, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for psychotherapy and psychiatric diagnostic evaluation. You say that the services 
should be covered. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that unauthorized, out-of-network care is not 
covered. 
 
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 pay for care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving emergencies, 
out of area urgent care and pre-approved care. 
 
The Plan had network providers available who were capable of providing the items/services at issue in this 
appeal. (Please note, items and services received in-network are still subject to any other Medicare coverage rules that apply.) The Plan did not pre-approve the item(s)/service(s) at issue. We found no exception that 
would require the Plan to pay for the item(s)/service(s). Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pay for psychotherapy and psychiatric diagnostic evaluation provided on July 20, 2023, to September 06, 2023.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the supply allowance for a continuous glucose monitor 
(CGM) provided on August 22, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the supply allowance for a CGM. You say that you have submitted proof of 
delivery along with other supporting documentation, but the claim keeps denying for missing this information. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the provider is not enrolled in Medicare as a durable medical 
equipment supplier. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare payment cannot be made to a provider that is 
not enrolled in the Medicare program. 
 
 
 Review of the file and Medicare records indicates that the provider at issue is not enrolled in the Medicare 
program. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the supply allowance for a continuous 
glucose monitor (CGM) provided on August 22, 2023.