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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve placement of a CardioMEMS device (33289). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve placement of a CardioMEMS device. You say that the requested service is a 
medical necessity for the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested service is 
experimental/investigational. 
 
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 placement of a CardioMEMS device. 
Our reviewer says that the requested service is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. 
Our physician reviewer found that there remains a dearth of randomized, blinded clinical studies examining 
long-term clinical outcomes establishing the value of CardioMEMS in patient 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 placement of a CardioMEMS device have not been met. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan does not have to pre-approve placement of a CardioMEMS device (33289).
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute IRE admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee needs IRF care. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet criteria for IRF care. 
 
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 
does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy in an 
intensive rehabilitation program. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different level of care. There is 
no 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 IRE admission and services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a MyoPro powered arm brace (L8702). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a MyoPro device. You say that the MyoPro is safe and effective; and 
clinical studies demonstrate its use results in significantly improved medical outcome or a significantly 
superior clinical outcome. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says experimental and investigational 
procedures are not covered by Medicare. 
 
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 a MyoPro device. Our reviewer says 
that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found current clinical guidelines for adult stroke rehabilitation and recovery designate 
robotic therapy to be of "uncertain utility compared with dose-matched conventional upper limb exercise 
therapies" with unproven benefit in the home environment. Although records from the device 
manufacturer/vendor argue medical necessity of the requested device, records from the enrollee's actual 
treating physician do not clarify why the requested device is the most appropriate treatment for the enrollee's 
condition. Records from the treating physician just report the enrollee presented to the office requesting the 
device; the doctor signed an order for the device and indicated no specific follow-up beyond this. In addition, 
provided records report "profound" right upper extremity spasticity which may be a contraindication to use of 
the device. 
 
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 MyoPro device have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a MyoPro powered arm brace (L8702).
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 99140 billed for date of service April 13, 
2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 99140. You say that you are appealing with supporting records. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says procedure code 99140 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 99140 has a status indicator of B on the Physician Fee Schedule. This means that 
procedure code 99140 is not separately payable. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of procedure code 99140 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay 
for procedure code 99140 billed for date of service April 13, 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 IRF care is a necessity for you. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says IRF care 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 your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does 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. 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.  
 
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 subsequent nursing facility care provided on May 26, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for subsequent nursing facility care. You say that the services were medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says no medical necessity for an out-of-network provider, 
such as an urgent or emergency situation, has been documented. There is no network deficiency for these 
services and alternate network providers were found. 
 
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 requested provider in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan did not pre-approve the 
services at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay for these services. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for subsequent nursing facility care provided on May 26, 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 enrollee meets the full criteria for an inpatient 
rehabilitation stay. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet 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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 20930 billed for date of service December 
28, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 20930. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says procedure 
code 20930 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 20930 has a status indicator of B on the Physician Fee Schedule. This means that 
procedure code 20930 is not separately payable. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of procedure code 20930 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay 
for procedure code 20930 billed for date of service December 28, 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 with the progress the enrollee is making in therapy 
and their medical complexities, they are now appropriate for inpatient rehabilitation. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says based on the clinical information received, the enrollee does not meet the guidelines for 
IRF services.  
 
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: Outpatient Mental Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for psychotherapy provided from December 9, 2022, to 
December 20, 2022.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the psychotherapy. You say that the services were medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the provider must attempt to consult the attending or primary care physician about the services furnished and document the consent or declination date to consultations, and the date of the 
consultations in the patient's medical record. There was not documentation of contact in the patient record. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that the CP or LCSW must document, in the patient's 
medical record, the date the patient consented or declined consent to consultations, the date of consultation, or, 
if attempts to consult did not succeed, that date and manner of notification to the physician. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of the psychotherapy have not been met. Specifically, the record does not include documentation of a 
consultation or an attempt to consult the enrollee's primary/attending physician as required by Medicare rules. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for psychotherapy provided from December 9, 2022, 
to December 20, 2022.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for collagen cross links testing (82523) provided on May 4, 
2023.  
You asked the Plan to pay for collagen cross links testing. You say that the service at issue was a necessity for 
the enrollee's care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says rules for payment have not been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that the provider, supplier, or beneficiary, as 
appropriate, must furnish to the intermediary or carrier sufficient information to determine whether payment is 
due and the amount of payment. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that there is insufficient 
information in the record to determine if Medicare rules for coverage of collagen cross links testing have been 
met. Specifically, the medical documentation provided does not include progress notes or a physician order to 
show why the testing at issue were ordered. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for 
collagen cross links testing (82523) provided on May 4, 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 enrollee's ability to regain maximum function is 
in jeopardy if not approved for rehabilitation. 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 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: 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 you would like reconsideration based on 
the records submitted. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet Medicare 
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 does not appear to require care at an inpatient level as the enrollee's acute 
problems have stabilized and the enrollee is currently being maintained on enteral nutrition. The enrollee does 
not appear to require daily physician involvement or other services that could only be provided in an LTACH.  
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you need rehabilitation to regain your strength. You 
say you were totally independent before and want to regain your quality of life. 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 your 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 an insertion of interlaminar/interspinous process 
stabilization/distraction device (22869). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a Vertiflex device. You say that you disagree with the denial. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says unproven and not medically necessary procedures are not covered by 
Medicare. 
 
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 a Vertiflex device. Our reviewer says 
that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the Vertiflex device is experimental and investigational. There is more research 
needed due to insufficient evidence of efficacy. 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 Vertiflex device have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve an insertion of interlaminar/interspinous process stabilization/distraction device 
(22869).
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for practitioner services provided on October 31, 2022, billed 
with procedure code 99232-24-57. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the practitioner services provided. You say that that the claim is billed correctly 
and should be paid. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says payment for this code is included in the 
payment of the primary procedure. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that the provider, supplier, or beneficiary, as 
appropriate, must furnish to the intermediary or carrier sufficient information to determine whether payment is due and the amount of payment. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that there is insufficient 
information in the record to determine if Medicare rules for coverage of the practitioner services provided have 
been met. Specifically, the documentation provided did not include proof of payment for the primary procedure 
to verify that this code is global to another procedure. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay 
for practitioner services provided on October 31, 2022, billed with procedure code 99232-24-57.