Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for the hospital services provided on August 
17, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for the hospital services. You say that the cost share is wrong. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says this cost sharing was charged correctly. 
 
The rules say a plan must disclose to its enrollees in clear, accurate terms all cost sharing information (such as 
copayments, deductibles and coinsurance). Your contract with the Plan clearly says that you must pay a $150 
copayment for outpatient hospital services. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $150 copayment for the hospital services. This item/service falls within the 
outpatient hospital services benefit category. This means that you have been asked to pay the correct amount 
based on your contract with the Plan. This cost sharing is a contractual obligation you agreed to pay when you enrolled in the Plan. However, the allowed amount is less than the copay, you you only owe $113.56 Therefore, 
we decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for the hospital services provided on August 
17, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve repeat RFA. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve repeat RFA. You say that you are always in pain and have a pinched nerve. 
Your pain also gets worse in the cold weather. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this is not 
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 pre-approve repeat RFA. Our reviewer says that the 
service is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the required length of time outlined by the 
LCD was not achieved and therefore, the request is deemed not medically reasonable and 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 repeat RFA. have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve repeat RFA.
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 IRF admission is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the criteria for the IRF admission.  
 
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. At the time of 
the request for an IRF admission, the enrollee had minimal residual deficits in terms of their symptoms and 
they did not require handson assistance with any skilled therapy activities. The enrollee does not require 
treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and 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.  
 
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 medical records provided support the need for 
care in an IRF. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that admission to an IRF is not medically 
necessary and does not meet the criteria for coverage.  
 
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 
was admitted for cervical fracture, rib fracture and pneumothorax after a fall. There are no complex nursing or 
rehabilitation needs. The enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical 
therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. 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. 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 acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a laminotomy procedure (63030). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a laminotomy. 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 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 a laminotomy. Our reviewer says that 
the requested service is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer 
found there is no correlation between imaging and physical exam showing nerve-root compression and 
corresponding deficit on exam. 
 
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 laminotomy have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a laminotomy procedure (63030).
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 51728 rendered on May 22, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. You say that this should be paid for. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) 51728 remains 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 51728 is ""Complex cystometrogram (ie, calibrated 
electronic equipment); with voiding pressure studies (ie, bladder voiding pressure), any technique." 
 
We asked our coder to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to determine if the 
Plan was correct in denying the request to pay for the services. Our reviewer says that the services at issue in 
this case were not supported by the medical records. Our reviewer found that in this case, the record indicates 
that the enrollee underwent a Uroflow bladder test. The record provided does not document that the procedure described by the billed code was performed. The elements of the coverage criteria are not satisfied. 
 
We looked at this coder's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pay for procedure code 51728 rendered on May 22, 2023.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a home ventilator (E0466). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a home ventilator. You say that the requested item is a medical necessity for 
the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested item is not medically necessary. 
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that ventilators may be covered when they are medically 
necessary for patients who have neuromuscular disease, thoracic restrictive diseases, and chronic respiratory 
failure due to COPD. Claims for ventilators used to provide CPAP or bi-level CPAP therapy will be denied as 
not reasonable and 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 pre-approve a home ventilator. Our reviewer says 
that a home ventilator is not medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found that 
the provided records document that the home ventilator is being requested for use in an average volume assured 
pressure support (AVAPS) mode, which is a modality that could be provided by a BiPAP device with AVAPS 
and a back-up rate. Provided records do not document trial and failure of a BiPAP device with AVAPS and a 
back-up rate. 
 
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 home ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a home ventilator (E0466).
Appeal type: Outpatient Therapies
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the physical therapy services provided on July 12, 2023. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for the billed services. You say that the documentation proves medical necessity. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the diagnosis code at issue is not appropriate as a primary 
diagnosis. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that providers must comply with ICD-10-CM coding 
guidelines. These guidelines state that certain codes are manifestation codes, denoted with a code first note, or 
in diseases classified elsewhere in the code definition. Another diagnosis code should be sequenced before a 
manifestation code if applicable.  
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. This claim was billed with primary diagnosis code E08.00 Diagnosis 
code group E08 is defined as diabetes mellitus due to underlying condition. The billed primary diagnosis code 
is not an appropriate primary diagnosis. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for payment 
of this claim have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the physical 
therapy services provided on July 12, 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 an IRF admission is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee must be able to participate in and benefit from intensive 
rehabilitation therapy and must complete their full course of acute hospital treatment.  
 
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's 
medical problems are stable and there are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. The enrollee does not 
require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an 
intensive rehabilitation therapy program. 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. 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 acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve SNF care. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that you need continued SNF services as you are still not 
well. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you have reached maximum improvement and no longer 
require SNF services. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for care in a SNF when the four factors 
listed in the Medicare rules section are met. Custodial care is not covered. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve SNF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested SNF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found you no longer require the level of observation and treatment provided in terms of 
physician oversight and skilled nursing care. You may require some degree of skilled nursing services, but you 
do not require the intensity of skilled nursing services provided in the SNF. The documentation provided does 
not support the need for skilled therapy services or that you are receiving them currently. You may continue to 
require assistance with daily activities and mobility, but this does not require the intensity of skilled therapy 
services provided in the SNF setting. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of SNF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve SNF care.
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Euflexxa. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve Euflexxa. You say that the requested drug is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the requested drug is subject to step therapy. The Plan's preferred 
viscosupplements are Orthovisc, Supartz FX, Durolane, Monovisc, or Synvisc-One. The requested drug is 
covered when criteria are met. The unmet criteria are: the enrollee has tried or cannot use Orthovisc or Supartz 
FX. 
 
Medicare covers Part B medications when they are reasonable and necessary but allows health plans to 
implement step therapy criteria. The Plan's contract indicates that it has implemented such criteria for certain 
Part B medications. 
 
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 Euflexxa. Our reviewer says that the 
requested drug is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found step therapy, as outlined by the Plan, 
requires that preferred viscosupplemental treatment, such as Orthovisc OR Supartz FX, be trialed first. The 
documentation does not outline contraindications or reasons these medications were not considered or that the 
Plan's additional required drugs would likely be less effective and/or likely have adverse effects for the 
enrollee. Without the support of the documentation, Euflexxa is not approved as step criteria have not been met 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Euflexxa have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Euflexxa.
Appeal type: ER
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an emergency department visit (procedure 99285) provided 
on July 8, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for an emergency department visit (procedure 99285). You say that procedure code 
99285 is appropriate based on the services performed. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the records 
do not support the services at issue in this case. 
 
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 an emergency department visit (procedure 99285). Our 
reviewer says that the service at issue in this case is not supported by the medical records. Our reviewer found 
that the documentation supported an appropriate history and examination; however, it does not support a high 
level of medical decision-making as the enrollee was hemodynamically stable without need for complex 
treatment and was discharged home same day. 
 
We looked at this coder's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of an emergency department visit (procedure 99285) have not been met. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an emergency department visit (procedure 99285) 
provided on July 8, 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 needs this care to rebuild strength. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollees medical condition does not require IRF services, and care 
can be provided 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 the complexity of the enrollee's medical, rehabilitation, and nursing needs does not 
require IRF care with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitative care. The enrollee's rehabilitation needs 
can be safely provided in an alternate setting.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of 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 needs IRF services as she lives alone 
and is a fall risk. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the requirements for 
an IRF admission.  
 
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 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 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 this enrollee will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive 
rehabilitation program provided in an IRF. 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: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code A0380 billed for date of service May 17, 
2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code A0380. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the billed 
code is invalid for Medicare purposes.  
 
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 A0380 has a Status Indicator of I on the Physician Fee Schedule. This means that 
procedure code A0380 is not valid for Medicare purposes. Code A0380 is not among the codes covered for 
ambulance services. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the services 
provided have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 
A0380 billed for date of service May 17, 2023.