Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve foot orthotics, lift, elevation, heel, per inch.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve foot orthotics. You say that you would like reconsideration because the 
requested foot orthotics are medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this item is not a 
covered benefit. 
 
Medicare rules state that supportive devices for the feet (such as orthotics) are only covered for patients with 
diabetic foot disease or for patients who wear a leg brace. The Plan follows these same rules.   
 
Records show that the enrollee does not suffer from diabetic foot disease and does not wear a leg brace. 
Although orthotics may be appropriate for the enrollee, neither Medicare nor the Plan provides coverage of 
orthotics for the enrollee's condition. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve foot 
orthotics, lift, elevation, heel, per inch.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for lab services provided on January 25, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the lab services. You say that you disagree with the denial. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says you billed with an incorrect place of service on the claim. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that, for lab services, the POS code must reflect the 
location in which the sample was taken. POS code 81 is used to describe samples taken by the laboratory 
directly.  
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of the lab services have not been met. Specifically, this claim was billed with the laboratory POS 
code. The records do not support that the sample was taken in a laboratory setting. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pay for lab services provided on January 25, 2022.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve external upper limb stimulator of peripheral nerves of 
the wrist (Cala TAPS therapy). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Cala TAPS therapy. You say that the safety and efficacy of Cala TAPS 
therapy is demonstrated in the literature. You also say that this is medically necessary for the enrollee's 
declining quality of life. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this is considered experimental and 
therefore is not covered. 
 
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 Cala TAPS therapy. Our reviewer says 
that the requested Cala TAPS therapy is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the provided medical records and review of the current peer-reviewed medical literature do not document that use of the Cala TAPS therapy device has been shown in controlled studies in a 
CMS-approved journal to result in long term health benefits in patients with essential tremor. therefore, the 
reviewer found that the requested Cala TAPS therapy is not medically reasonable or 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 Cala TAPS therapy have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve external upper limb stimulator of peripheral nerves of the wrist (Cala TAPS therapy).
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for the laboratory panel (81445) provided on June 2, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the laboratory test. You say that this test was necessary and is supported in the 
medical record. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that this claim is missing the necessary Dex-Z 
code identifier for this test. 
 
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. Specifically, the services at issue were actually rendered/performed in a state 
which is not under the jurisdiction of the Local Coverage Determination cited by the Plan. The state in question 
does not participate in the Molecular Diagnostics (MolDX) contractor program, and therefore MolDX rules do 
not apply. This means that the requirement of a Dex-Z code does not apply in this case, and the Plan has not 
substantiated their denial. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for the laboratory panel (81445) 
provided on June 2, 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: 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 of the denied IRF 
admission. 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 the complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical, and rehabilitation needs can be 
provided in a lower level of care and does not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary 
approach to rehabilitation care.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for the lab and injection services provided on July 30, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the billed services. You say that the claim was denied in error. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says that payment was based on the fiscal intermediary rate. 
 
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. 
 
We looked at the file and the rules. The remittance advice in the case file indicates the claim is not covered by 
the Plan. The Plan has not provided and ruling or rationale as to why the service is not covered. The Plan has 
not made reasonable and diligent efforts to gather and forward to us information regarding their decision to 
deny your request.  Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for the lab and injection services provided 
on July 30, 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: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the medical records provided support the need for 
the requested IRF admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the submitted clinical information 
does not support the medical necessity of care requested.  
 
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, including either 
physical therapy or occupational therapy, at an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. There is not a 
reasonable expectation that this individual will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive 
rehabilitation therapy program provided in an inpatient rehabilitation facility. The enrollee continues to have a 
need for skilled therapy with ongoing safety concerns and a potential for functional improvement however, the 
documentation doesnt support that they 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, participating in 
rehab services 15 hours a week, under the supervision of a physician with at least 3 visits weekly to regain or 
maintain their functional status.  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 inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the laboratory panel provided on May 5, 2023, billed with 
codes 87481, 87491, 87563, 87640, 87653, 87798, 87641 and 87500. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the laboratory panel billed. You say that this testing was necessary and is 
supported in the medical record. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says panel testing should be billed 
using one CPT code on the claim. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that a laboratory shall report only one unit of service of one 
genomic sequencing procedure, molecular multianalyte assay, multianalyte assay with algorithmic analysis, or 
proprietary laboratory analysis code. 
 
 We looked at the file and Medicare rules. This was a laboratory panel that was not billed with a single panel 
code as required. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the laboratory 
panel billed have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the laboratory 
panel provided on May 5, 2023, billed with codes 87481, 87491, 87563, 87640, 87653, 87798, 87641 and 
87500.
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 to continue with aggressive 
rehabilitation, including physical therapy and occupational therapy services to promote further functional gains 
and to prevent further physical debility. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's condition 
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 that the complexity of the enrollees nursing, medical, and rehabilitation needs does 
not require an acute rehabilitation 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, at an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. 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 the enrollee would meet criteria for admission to an IRF.  There is no indication that the 
enrollee would require skilled rehabilitation in an IRF, participating in rehabilitation services 15 hours a week, 
under the supervision of a physician with at least 3 visits weekly to regain or maintain their functional 
status.  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 inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee's medical management and rehabilitation 
needs require an IRF stay and close physician supervision. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
medical necessity for IRF placement is not supported.  
 
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 enrollees nursing, medical, and rehabilitation needs does not 
require an acute rehabilitation 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, at an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. 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. 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 the enrollee would meet criteria for 
admission to an IRF.  There is no indication that the enrollee would require skilled rehabilitation in an IRF, 
participating in rehabilitation services 15 hours a week, under the supervision of a physician with at least 3 
visits weekly to regain or maintain theirfunctional status.  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 inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for radiology services provided by September 26, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for radiology services. You say that you are requesting reconsideration for the 
denied claim. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the coverage excludes the services because they 
are experimental. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that if there are no specific coverage rules for an item 
or service, then that item or service will be covered when it is medically necessary.  
 
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 radiology services. Our reviewer says that 
the requested items/services are considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and magnetic resonance cholangio pancreatography 
(MRCP) are not experimental exams in the follow up of a pancreatic head cystic mass and were medically 
necessary in the care of the enrollee. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of radiology services have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to 
pay for radiology services provided by September 26, 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: Outpatient Therapies
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve ten (10) additional physical therapy (PT) visits (97164). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve additional therapy services. You say that additional physical therapy visits 
are medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says additional physical therapy visits are not 
medically necessary. 
 
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 additional requested therapy is not generally accepted as specific 
and effective therapy for the enrollee's condition beyond what was approved by the health plan. The records do 
not demonstrate that the unique skills of a professional therapist are required to safely and effectively provide 
treatment, that the services can be safely and effectively performed only by a therapist, or by or under the 
supervision of a therapist. The requested services are not part of a maintenance program, and the specialized 
skill, knowledge and judgment of a qualified therapist is not required to establish, design and/or deliver a 
program to maintain the enrollee's current condition or to prevent or slow further deterioration. The enrollee 
can transition to an independent home exercise program. He does not require ongoing formal skilled therapy. 
 
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 ten (10) additional physical therapy (PT) visits (97164).
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the laboratory panel provided on December 22, 2022, billed 
with codes 87798, 87653, 87652, 87640, 87500 and 87481. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the laboratory panel billed. You say that this testing was necessary and is 
supported in the medical record. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says panel testing should be billed 
using one CPT code on the claim. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that a laboratory shall report only one unit of service of one 
genomic sequencing procedure, molecular multianalyte assay, multianalyte assay with algorithmic analysis, or 
proprietary laboratory analysis code. 
 
 We looked at the file and Medicare rules. This was a laboratory panel that was not billed with a single panel 
code as required. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the laboratory 
panel billed have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the laboratory 
panel provided on December 22, 2022, billed with codes 87798, 87653, 87652, 87640, 87500 and 87481.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Synthes fibergraft (20930). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Synthes fibergraft. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the clinical value and effectiveness of the Synthes fibergraft in the setting of 
lumbar spine fusion surgery have not been demonstrated in the peer-reviewed literature. 
 
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 Synthes fibergraft. Our reviewer says 
that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found there is limited published, large-scale, long-term peer-reviewed literature that shows 
this requested allograft to be an effective and/or safe treatment for the noted pathology. Further studies are 
needed to demonstrate this request has beneficial outcomes compared with conventional treatment. There is no 
compelling rationale presented, or extenuating circumstances noted to support the medical necessity of this 
request as an exception. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Synthes fibergraft have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve Synthes fibergraft (20930).