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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you would like reconsideration based on the records 
submitted. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet all the requirements for 
admission to an IRF.  
 
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 needs does 
not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The 
enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational 
therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While the enrollee may have a need for physical 
therapy 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 an IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a water circulating heat pad with pump (E0217) provided on 
November 16, 2022, through December 14, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for a water circulating heat pad with pump. You say that the item was medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this item is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that if code E0215 or E0217 is provided it will be 
denied as not reasonable and necessary. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of a water circulating heat pad with pump have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pay for a water circulating heat pad with pump (E0217) provided on November 16, 2022, through December 14, 2022.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Freestyle Libre 3. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a Freestyle Libre 3. You say that the Freestyle Libre 2 is too large and does 
not provide a constant reading. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says a Freestyle Libre 3 is not a covered 
continuous glucose monitor. 
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that a non-adjunctive continuous glucose monitor 
(CGM) must be billed with code E2103. The rules also say that only devices reviewed by the PDAC and 
assigned code E2103 may be billed using this code.  
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The request at issue is for the Freestyle Libre 3 non-adjunctive CGM. 
However, this device has not been reviewed by the PDAC and has not been assigned code E2103. As such, this 
non-adjunctive CGM device is not eligible for coverage at this time. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a Freestyle Libre 3.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve epidural steroid injections.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve epidural steroid injections. You say that it is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says it is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that 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 SAME scale for at least three months. If a patient fails to respond 
well to the initial ESI, a repeat ESI after 14 days can be performed using a different approach, level and/or 
medication, if appropriate, with the rationale and medical necessity for the second ESI documented in the 
medical record. 
 
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 epidural steroid injections. Our 
reviewer says that the service is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found there is no 
documentation provided indicating that the enrollee has had >50% relief for at least 3 months, as 3 months 
have not yet elapsed, and the pain has remained at 8/10. The review has determined that the enrollee does not 
meet the coverage indications for this procedure. The enrollee does not meet any of the limitations/exclusions 
for this request. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of epidural steroid injections have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve epidural steroid injections.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve thermal destruction of intraosseous basivertebral nerve, 
including all imaging guidance; first 2 vertebral bodies, lumbar or sacral (64628) and thermal destruction of 
intraosseous basivertebral nerve, including all imaging guidance; each additional vertebral body, lumbar or 
sacral (64629). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve an Intracept procedure. You say that the requested procedure is needed due 
to the enrollee's pain management and mobility. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the case request 
does not meet the standard of care because imaging and symptoms reveal additional significant pathologies that 
are unlikely to benefit from the procedure and is not approved. 
 
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 Intracept procedure. Our reviewer 
says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) shows spinal stenosis. The cause of pain is 
unclear. The requested procedure 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 an Intracept procedure have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve thermal destruction of intraosseous basivertebral nerve, including all imaging 
guidance; first 2 vertebral bodies, lumbar or sacral (64628) and thermal destruction of intraosseous 
basivertebral nerve, including all imaging guidance; each additional vertebral body, lumbar or sacral (64629).
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 an expedited reconsideration for 
the denial of an IRF admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request for coverage of an 
acute IRF admission is not considered 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 the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. 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. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health care billed for dates of service November 6, 
2022, to December 1, 2022. You asked the Plan to pay for the billed services. You say that the NOA was submitted per instructions. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the NOA was not received timely.  
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that an NOA must be submitted within 5 days of the start of 
care date for home health services. NOAs which are received more than 30 days from the timely filing date 
result in no payment being made for the episode of care.  
 
In this case, the start of care date is November 6, 2022. The NOA was not received by the Plan until January 
25, 2023. As more than 30 days passed between the timely filing date and the NOA receipt, no payment can be 
made on this claim. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health care billed for 
dates of service November 6, 2022, to December 1, 2022.
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 an expedited reconsideration as 
the enrollee currently meets full IRF criteria. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not 
meet the Medicare guidelines for services in an IRF.  
 
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 do not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. 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. 
 
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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Freestyle Libre 3. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a Freestyle Libre 3.. You say that a Freestyle Libre 3 will better control the 
enrollee's numbers. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says a Freestyle Libre 3 is not a covered continuous 
glucose monitor. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that a non-adjunctive continuous glucose monitor 
(CGM) must be billed with code E2103. The rules also say that only devices reviewed by the PDAC and 
assigned code E2103 may be billed using this code.   
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The request at issue is for the Freestyle Libre 3 non-adjunctive CGM. 
However, this device has not been reviewed by the PDAC and has not been assigned code E2103. As such, this 
non-adjunctive CGM device is not eligible for coverage at this time. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a Freestyle Libre 3.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code A4223 billed for dates of service December 
15, 2022, to December 26, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the billed services. You say that home infusion requires specialized equipment 
and supplies. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the code is not eligible for reimbursement. 
 
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 code A4223 is not supported. There are more accurate codes available to describe supplies 
used with a covered external infusion pump. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of the billed services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for 
procedure code A4223 billed for dates of service December 15, 2022, to December 26, 2022.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 88377 billed for date of service March 23, 
2023. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 88377. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says payment for 
code 88377 is bundled into payment for code 81219. 
 
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 88377 
is a column II code to column I code 81219. 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 88377 billed for date of 
service March 23, 2023.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the services (96365, 96366, 96521, J1817) provided on 
March 3, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the billed codes are 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. 
 
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 use of codes 96365, 
96366, 96521, and J1817, is not supported by the records provided. Our reviewer found that for codes 96365 
and 96366, the procedure report describes "Nova R infusion". In this case, there is a more appropriate 
Healthcare Common Procedural Coding System (HCPCS) code to report for OIVIT (Outpatient intravenous insulin treatment). For code 96521, the procedure report does not include documentation of "Refilling and 
maintenance of portable pump". For code J1817, the procedure report describes "Nova R infusion". In this 
case, there is a more appropriate Healthcare Common Procedural Coding System (HCPCS) code for the service 
provided. 
 
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 the services (96365, 96366, 96521, J1817) provided on March 3, 2023.
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 requested LTACH admission is 
medically necessary, and the enrollee meets the LTACH criteria for placement. 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 there is no documentation provided indicating the medical necessity for 
admission to an LTACH. 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 Plan. The requested LTACH services are not medically necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee and able to be furnished 
safely and effectively only on an inpatient basis. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve LTACH services.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for excision and repair, complex, forehead, cheeks, chin, mouth, 
neck, axillae, genitalia, hands provided on April 11, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for excision and repair, complex, forehead, cheeks, chin, mouth, neck, axillae, 
genitalia, hands. You say that this service is supported in the records. 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 provider of the item(s)/service(s) at issue in this appeal is not a network provider with the Plan. 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 excision and repair, 
complex, forehead, cheeks, chin, mouth, neck, axillae, genitalia, hands provided on April 11, 2023.
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 the best chance 
for a quicker recovery and more favorable outcome. 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 enrollee does not require services at the LTACH that are not available at the 
acute care hospital where the enrollee is currently receiving care. The health plan has approved ongoing care 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: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for skilled nursing facility (SNF) care provided from December 
8, 2022, to December 24, 2022. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for SNF care. You say that the services are coverable under Medicare guidelines. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the SNF services you are requesting 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 pay for 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 require skilled nursing or skilled therapy services that require 
the specialized skill, knowledge, and judgement of a skilled professional nurse or therapist. The enrollee does 
not require skilled services on a daily basis. The enrollee does not require skilled services on an inpatient basis 
in a 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 pay for skilled nursing facility (SNF) care provided from December 8, 2022, to December 24, 2022.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the continuation of skilled nursing visits. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve the continuation of skilled nursing visits. You say that you are not capable 
of taking care of yourself and the services are medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says the services are not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that home health care services may be covered if it is 
medically necessary for the enrollee to receive skilled nursing or therapy. A doctor must certify the need for 
home health care services. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the continuation of skilled nursing 
visits. Our reviewer says that the services are not medically reasonable and necessary. Our physician reviewer 
found that the enrollee does not have documented skilled nursing needs. As such, home health skilled nursing 
services are not medically necessary or reasonable. 
 
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 continuation of skilled nursing visits have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the continuation of skilled nursing visits.