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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 96040 billed for date of service August 15, 
2023. 
  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 96040. You say that 96040 should be paid as billed because this 
service was medically necessary and there is no global period for this code. The Plan denied your request. The 
Plan says procedure code 96040 is considered bundled and not separately payable.  
 
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 96040 has a status indicator of B on the Physician Fee Schedule. This means that 
procedure code 96040 is not separately payable. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of procedure code 96040 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay 
for procedure code 96040 billed for date of service August 15, 2023.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Keytruda. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the drug. You say that you need this procedure to be approved because of 
your medical condition and the type of cancer you have. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says Keytruda 
is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare may pay for unlabeled uses for anti-cancer 
drugs if they are medically accepted as safe and effective or appropriate for the particular use.  
 
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 drug. Our reviewer says that 
Keytruda is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the requested use of Keytruda is not 
FDA-approved. Keytruda is also not supported by one of the major drug compendia or by clinical research.  
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 drug have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Keytruda.
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 medical records provided support the need for 
the requested IRF admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says based on the available information, 
admission to IRF is not reasonable and necessary, as the enrollee's condition does not meet the Medicare rules.  
 
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 can be provided 
in a lower level of care and does not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach 
to rehabilitation care. The enrollee requires treatment by multiple therapies, including physical therapy and 
occupational therapy, but this can be provided in a lower level of care. There is documentation that there is 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, but the services required can be provided 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 acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee will benefit from acute rehab to optimize 
their level of functioning prior to returning home. You say that the enrollee requires interdisciplinary therapy 
care such as occupational and physical therapy. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an IRF admission 
is not medically necessary.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section.  
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found that the complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation can be 
provided in a lower level of care and does not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary 
approach to rehabilitation 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 for a transfer to an 
LTACH. You say that the enrollee requires prolonged and intensive skilled services that are not available at a 
lower level of care.  The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an LTACH admission 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 documentation does not support that LTACH services are medically 
appropriate. The enrollee is receiving the appropriate care in the current acute care setting as provided by the 
Health Plan. 
 
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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve kyphoplasty (22514). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve kyphoplasty. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says this is not medically necessary because the records do not show that the enrollee has an 
osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture, given there is no documented diagnosis of osteoporosis. 
Additionally, the records do not state when the enrollee's symptoms started. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that kyphoplasty can be covered when specific criteria are 
met. 
 
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 kyphoplasty. Our reviewer says that the 
enrollee does not meet criteria for coverage. Our physician reviewer found detailed documentation is not 
evident regarding the requested compression fractures or both acute or subacute. The enrollee is not clearly 
documented with a medical history of osteoporosis that is being actively treated. Additionally, there is no 
documentation of a progression of the body height loss, greater than 25% vertebral body height loss, kyphotic 
deformity, or a severe impact on daily activities. Moreover, there is computed tomography corroboration of 
other plausible causes of 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 kyphoplasty have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve kyphoplasty (22514).
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 11402 and 13102 rendered on June 3, 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 the denied codes remain not supported. 
 
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 the denied codes is: 
 
CPT 11402: 
 
Excision, benign lesion including margins, except skin tag (unless listed elsewhere), trunk, arms or legs; 
excised diameter 1.1 to 2.0 cm 
 CPT 13102: 
 
Repair, complex, trunk; each additional 5 cm or less (List separately in addition to code for primary procedure) 
 
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 11402 is not supported. The 
documentation does not state the dimensions of the lesion excised. This information is required in order to code 
this procedure. There is not enough information to determine the appropriate code. Additionally, 13102 is not 
supported. The record does not state the dimensions of the wound repaired, just the dimensions of the flaps 
created. It cannot be verified that the additional units were performed. 
 
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 procedure code 11402 and 13102 rendered on June 3, 2023.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the inpatient hospital services provided on January 15, 2023, 
to January 20, 2023, at the Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) originally billed. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the inpatient hospital services at the DRG originally billed. You say that the 
claim was accurately billed with the appropriate DRG. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the medical 
records did not have sufficient documentation to clinically validate the diagnosis code for sepsis due to 
enterococcus. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report inpatient hospital services with the appropriate DRG, which is based, in part, on the 
reported principal and secondary diagnosis codes.   
 
In this case, you billed the inpatient services provided with A41.81 defined as sepsis due to enterococcus. 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 inpatient hospital services at the DRG 
originally billed. Our physician reviewer found that the Sepsis-3 criteria was not met as there were insufficient 
support made for the patient having organ failure directly due to a dysregulated response to infection. 
Therefore, diagnosis code A41.81 (sepsis) is not supported.   
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided the 
medical records do not substantiate the DRG as billed. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay 
for the inpatient hospital services provided on January 15, 2023, to January 20, 2023, at the Diagnosis Related 
Group (DRG) originally billed.
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 would help the enrollee improve their 
functional mobility. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the IRF services are not medically necessary.  
 
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 problems are stable and there are no complex nursing or 
rehabilitation needs. The enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies 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 acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the medical records provided support the need for 
the requested IRF admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says based on the available information, 
admission to IRF is not reasonable and necessary, as the enrollee's condition does not meet the Medicare rules.  
 
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 
was admitted for lumbar spinal surgery. Medical problems are stable. 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: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Rituxan. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the medication. You say that this drug was requested due to the fact that the 
enrollee's cost sharing will be more affordable. Because they will qualify for a manufacture drug assistance 
program. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that step therapy requirements have 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 the medication. Our reviewer says that 
the criteria for coverage of Rituxan have not been met. Our physician reviewer found that the Plan requires a 
trial of Ruxience before they will approve the requested drug. In this case, the enrollee has not tried and failed 
the required drug. There is no documentation provided indicating that the Plan's required drug would likely be 
less effective 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 the medication have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve Rituxan.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for inpatient hospital services provided on November 4, 2022, to 
November 6, 2022, at the Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) originally billed. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the inpatient hospital services at the DRG originally billed. You say that the 
medical records support the billing of primary diagnosis code A41.9. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says the medical records do not support the billing of primary diagnosis code A41.9. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report inpatient hospital services with the appropriate DRG, which is based, in part, on the 
reported principal and secondary diagnosis codes.   
 
In this case, you billed the inpatient services provided with A41.9. 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 inpatient hospital services at the DRG originally billed. Our reviewer says 
that the medical records do not support the billing of primary diagnosis code A41.9. Our physician reviewer 
found based on the documentation provided, the enrollee presented with dyspnea on exertion, having recently 
been treated for influenza. The enrollee was found to still have influenza, along with pneumonia, heart failure 
and rapid-rate atrial fibrillation. A definitive evaluation of his leukocytosis was not completed, as the enrollee 
left against medical advice. Regardless, there were no signs of sepsis (hypotension, hypoperfusion, organ 
failure). As such, the billing of A41.9 is not supported.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided the 
medical records do not substantiate the DRG as billed. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay 
for inpatient hospital services provided on November 4, 2022, to November 6, 2022, at the Diagnosis Related 
Group (DRG) originally billed.
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 requested IRF admission is necessary for you to 
be able to walk again. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says admission to an IRF is not medically 
necessary.  
 
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. 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 the medical record supports a need for physical therapy and/or occupational therapy, there is 
no documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. 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. 
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.