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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 99285 for date of service January 1, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 99285. You say that you disagree with the Plan's denial. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services billed 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. 
 
In this case, the CPT Code Manual definition of code 99285 is emergency department visit for the evaluation 
and management of a patient, which requires a medically appropriate history and/or examination and high level 
of medical decision making. 
 
 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 procedure code 99285. Our reviewer says that the 
documentation does not support the code billed. Our reviewer found the enrollee presented to the emergency 
department with a cough. The enrollee had been treated with pneumonia two weeks prior. The enrollee was 
evaluated, chest x-ray was normal and was treated with IV fluids and discharged. The review has determined 
that the documentation did not support a medically appropriate history and/or examination and high level of 
medical decision making to support code 99285. 
 
We looked at this coder's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of procedure code 99285 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pay for procedure code 99285 for date of service January 1, 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 the services are medically necessary to help the 
enrollee regain maximum function. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services the enrollee needs 
can be provided in another setting such as a skilled nursing facility, home with home health services or home 
with outpatient therapy.  
 
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 does not require treatment by multiple therapies. 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the laboratory services related to end-stage renal disease 
(ESRD) provided on December 21, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the ESRD-related laboratory services. You say that your organization does not 
have a contract with the dialysis facility for payment of these lab services. The Plan denied your request. The 
Plan says Medicare does not separately pay for ESRD-related laboratory testing. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules state that routine ESRD laboratory services are not 
separately payable. Laboratories should bill the facility directly for laboratory services as they are considered 
part of the composite rate. No other payment for these services is allowed. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pay for the laboratory services related to end-stage renal disease (ESRD) provided on 
December 21, 2022.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for an eye examination provided on January 17, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for an eye examination provided on January 17, 2023. You say that you do not agree 
with the cost share. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that this cost sharing was charged correctly. 
 
The rules say a plan must disclose to its enrollees in clear, accurate terms all cost sharing information. Your 
contract with the Plan says that enrollees must pay $0 for eye examinations.  
 
The Plan says you must pay a $40 copayment for an eye examination provided on January 17, 2023. Based on 
the Plan contract, however, you cannot be asked to pay more than $0 for an eye examination provided on 
January 17, 2023. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for an eye examination provided on January 
17, 2023.  
 
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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a continuous glucose monitor receiver. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the requested services. You say that the requested receiver is more accurate. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee has not tried and failed the benefit limit. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say Medicare covers DME only when it is reasonable and 
necessary. If DME serves the same purpose as equipment already available to an enrollee, it is not considered 
reasonable and necessary. 
 
The file shows that the enrollee has a receiver. The enrollees current receiver serves the same purpose as the 
requested upgraded device. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a continuous 
glucose monitor receiver.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve cardiology services to be provided by an out-of-network 
(OON) provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve OON services. You say that you do not have confidence in plan providers. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says services are available in plan. 
 
Medicare rules say that plans can require enrollees to get care from network providers. The contract with the 
Plan says that the Plan has to pre-approve care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving 
emergencies, out of area urgent care and care that cannot be provided by network providers. 
 
 The requested provider in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan has network providers 
available who can provide the services at issue in this appeal. We found no exception that would require the 
Plan to pre-approve these OON services. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve 
cardiology services to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Partially Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for the critical care service provided on November 25, 2022. We 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the critical care service provided on November 23, 2022.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the critical care services (99291) provided on November 23, 2022, and 
November 25, 2022.. You say that the records do not show that any other physician billed on the same day. 
You also say that the services should be paid. The Plan says that the claim was processed correctly. 
 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for the critical care service provided on November 25, 2022.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare health plans must make reasonable and 
diligent efforts to gather and forward to the IRE information regarding its decision to deny coverage or 
payment.  
 
The Plan has not made reasonable and diligent efforts to gather and forward to us information regarding their 
decision to deny the request for the critical care service provided on November 25, 2022. The record shows that 
this date of service was denied due to the payment being included in the fee for the procedure. The record does 
not indicate what the primary procedure is or why that would make this service not payable. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan has to pay for the critical care service provided on November 25, 2022.  
 
We also decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the critical care service provided on November 
23, 2022. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that that physicians in the same group practice who are in 
the same specialty must bill and be paid as though they were a single physician. The physicians should select a 
level of service representative of the combined visits and submit the appropriate code for that level. 
 
The record indicates that this service was billed by the same physician and on the same date of service as 
procedure code 99292. Since this procedure code was not billed with a modifier to indicate it was a separate 
issue, only one evaluation and management code is payable. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pay for the critical care service provided on November 23, 2022. 
 
If the Plan does not agree with our decision, they can ask us to open a case again. We only open a case again 
if we believe there was a mistake or if there is new information to review. The Plan has to show us the mistake 
and/or send us the new information. This does not happen often. If we decide to open the case again, we will 
send you a letter.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that it is a key critical factor to the enrollee's health 
success and is medically necessary. You say there is no doubt this level of care will allow the enrollee to 
capitalize on their mobility. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the IRF services requested 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 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 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 you are requesting an expedited appeal for the denial 
of an IRF admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says criteria for admission to the acute IRF 
setting have 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 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 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 you are requesting reconsideration for the denial of 
an IRF admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you do not meet the medical necessity 
guidelines 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 your medical problems are stable, and there are no complex nursing or 
rehabilitation needs. 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: Outpatient Therapies
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the therapy services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the therapy services. You say that you would like to request reconsideration 
of the denied authorization. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the criteria for approval have not been 
met. 
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for medically necessary outpatient 
therapy. 
 
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 therapy services. Our reviewer says 
that skilled services are not necessary to restore or maintain function or to prevent deterioration of the enrollee's 
condition. Our physician reviewer found the therapist has established and provided an effective treatment plan. 
The enrollee has responded and is able to continue with a home exercise program. Continued input from a 
skilled therapist 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 therapy services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve the therapy 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 level of care will provide 
more physical rehabilitation than a short-term acute hospital.  The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 
criteria for admission to an LTACH have not been met.  
 
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 all medically necessary care is being provided in the current acute care setting.  
 
 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 Plan has approved ongoing care in the current acute care setting.  
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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for anesthesia services provided on November 23, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the anesthesia services. You say that the patient had multiple exams on this date 
of service. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this claim is a duplicate of a previously paid claim and 
was correctly denied. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that claims or claim lines that have been determined to be 
exact duplicates of another claim or claim line are denied. However, such denials may be appealed. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The file includes evidence that the items/services at issue were 
reimbursed by the Plan on February 17, 2023. Comparison of the two claims shows these are exact duplicates. 
There is no evidence presented to support that the billed items/services were provided twice on the same date. 
Based on this information, we decided that the Medicare rules for the anesthesia services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for anesthesia services provided on November 23, 
2022.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for validity testing billed with code 83789 for date(s) of service 
February 15, 2023.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for code 83789. You say that this service is medically necessary and should be paid. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says code 83789 is not separately payable. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers performing validity testing on urine 
specimens utilized for drug testing should not separately bill the validity testing. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of code 83789 have not been met. Specifically, we find that the testing described by code 83789 is not 
separately payable. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for validity testing billed with 
code 83789 for date(s) of service February 15, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 99458 billed for date of service February 27, 
2023.   
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 99458. You say that you disagree with the Plan's denial. 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 99458 is 3. The MAI value for this code is 3. You billed 4 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 99458 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 99458 billed for date of service February 27, 2023.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the enrollee had previously received 
approval for coverage of LTACH care. You say the enrollee has now stabilized, and it is vital that this critical 
service be allowed to resume. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the 
guidelines for care in an LTACH.  
 
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 has ongoing acute medical issues and still requires acute care 
services. The enrollee continues to receive acute care services, and these have not been denied by the Plan. The 
medical record does not indicate that the enrollee requires services that they are not currently receiving but that 
would be available at the LTACH facility.   
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services.