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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Gammagard (J1569). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Gammagard. You say that you are requesting a fast appeal for Gammagard 
due to the enrollee's hypogammaglobulinemia that is causing them to have recurrent infections post Chimeric 
antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the coverage rules for this 
drug have not been met. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that immune globulin products will be considered 
medically reasonable and necessary when administered for treatment of FDA-labeled indications. 
 
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 Gammagard. Our reviewer says that the 
use of Gammagard is not reasonable or medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found intravenous 
immunoglobulin (IVIG) is indicated for the treatment of secondary hypogammaglobulinemia in patients with 
recurrent infections with documentation of adequate vaccination. Documentation of subprotective antibody 
levels following immunization against diphtheria, tetanus or pneumococcal infection is not provided. Our 
reviewer also found that only 1 infection post-transplant is documented and did not require antibiotics. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Gammagard have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve Gammagard (J1569).
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 70486 billed for date of service April 3, 
2023.   
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 70486. You say that you disagree with the 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 70486 is 1. The MAI value for this code is 3. You billed 2 units of this 
code, exceeding the MUE. You did not provide all the required evidence showing that the excess units were 
actually provided, were correctly coded, and were medically necessary. Based on this information, we decided 
that Medicare rules for coverage of procedure code 70486 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 70486 billed for date of service April 3, 2023.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that IRF care is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the 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 that the enrollee continues to have a need for skilled therapy with ongoing safety 
concerns and a potential for functional improvement however, the documentation does not support that she 
would meet criteria for admission to an acute inpatient rehabilitation facility. There is no indication that the 
enrollee would require skilled rehabilitation in an IRF. The enrollee can receive further services at a lower level 
of care. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute 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 the enrollee needs to move on with the 
next level of care and be out of the inpatient setting. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says criteria for 
admission to the 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 the enrollee is receiving appropriate care in the current acute care setting as provided 
by the Plan. The documentation does not support that LTACH services are medically appropriate at this time. 
 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 the enrollee needs intensive physical therapy and 
occupational therapy to get back to their prior level of function. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 
the enrollee does not meet the Medicare criteria 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 the enrollee does not have complex or intensive rehabilitation needs and does not 
require frequent physiatry oversight. 
 
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: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for the services provided from April 1, 2021, to April 2, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the IPA/PHO has 
financial responsibility. 
 
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 your request. The Plan argues that the IPA/PHO has financial responsibility. However, the 
Plan has not provided supporting documentation showing this to be the case. Without supporting 
documentation and a valid denial rationale, the Plan's denial cannot be substantiated. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan has to pay for the services provided from April 1, 2021, to April 2, 2021.  
 
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: ER
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for the services provided on August 15, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that evaluation and 
management codes are not covered for this specialty or provider type. 
 
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 your request. The Plan argues that evaluation and management codes are not covered for this 
specialty or provider type. However, the Plan has not provided documentation, nor cited a Medicare rule, 
supporting its denial. Without supporting documentation, the Plan's denial cannot be substantiated. Therefore, 
we decided that the Plan has to pay for the services provided on August 15, 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 pay for inpatient hospital services provided on April 7, 2022, to 
April 9, 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 diagnosis code I21.4.  The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
medical records do not support the billing of diagnosis code I21.4.  
 
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 I21.4. 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 diagnosis code I21.4.  Our physician reviewer found the enrollee 
presented with right-sided chest pain and shortness of breath. She was found to be in atrial fibrillation with 
heart rate 140+ and converted to normal sinus tachycardia without intervention but reverted back requiring 
diltiazem which eventually stabilized the rhythm and rate. Troponin was elevated then fell (145, 55, 87) but 
electrocardiogram (ECG) showed no ischemia. Troponins commonly rise in the setting of an uncontrolled 
tachycardia or atrial fibrillation and will fall shortly after being stabilized. The documentation did not reveal 
typical angina symptoms or other testing results to support the enrollee having a myocardial infarction (MI) 
such as ECHO with regional wall motion abnormalities to support the existence of ischemia. Therefore, the 
code, I21.4-non-ST elevation (NSTEMI) myocardial infarction, is not sufficiently supported for this admission.  
 
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 April 7, 2022, to April 9, 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 an IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee's clinical condition meets full IRF 
criteria. You say a lower level of care in a skilled nursing facility (SNF) cannot provide the total 
interdisciplinary team approach needed. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's treatment 
plan goals could be safely achieved in another setting.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found that the complexity of the enrollees 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: 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 the enrollee requires IRF services in to facilitate 
increased independence and to return home with an improved quality of life. You would like reconsideration 
based on the records submitted. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the 
Medicare criteria 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 enrollees 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for the services (01991) provided on March 31, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that code 01991 is not 
payable when billed with code 64447. 
 
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 your request. The Plan argues that code 01991 is not payable when billed with code 64447. 
While this is true, the Plan has not provided documentation showing that code 64447 was billed on the date of 
service in question. Without supporting documentation, the Plan's denial cannot be substantiated. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan has to pay for the services (01991) provided on March 31, 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve genicular radiofrequency ablation. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve genicular radiofrequency ablation. You say that you disagree with the Plan's 
denial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested services are not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that items and services that are not medically 
necessary are not covered.  
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve genicular radiofrequency ablation. Our 
reviewer says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this 
case. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has a history of chronic right knee pain. The enrollee has been 
treated with medications and underwent a partial knee replacement in 2016. Genicular nerve blocks and 
genicular nerve ablation are considered investigational and not medically necessary for the treatment of chronic 
knee pain, including, but not limited to any of the following:  degenerative joint disease; osteoarthritis of the knee; as a treatment prior to knee replacement; as a treatment following knee replacement; or as a treatment for 
individuals who are not candidates for knee replacement surgery. Therefore, the enrollee does not meet criteria 
for the requested services. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of genicular radiofrequency ablation have not been met. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan does not have to pre-approve genicular radiofrequency ablation.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that denying an IRF admission could be detrimental to 
the enrollee's health. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request 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 enrollees 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 IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 87640 billed for date of service October 4, 
2022. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 87640. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says payment for 
code 87640 is bundled into payment for code 87641. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate CPT code. In this case, we have confirmed that code 87640 
is a column II code to column I code 87641. Based on the claim submitted, Medicare billing criteria have not 
been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 87640 billed for date of 
service October 4, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for observation or inpatient hospital care provided on September 
24, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for observation or inpatient hospital care. 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 observation or inpatient 
hospital care provided on September 24, 2022.