Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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 LTACH admission is medically 
necessary for the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the criteria 
for the LTACH admission. 
 
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 require services at the LTACH that are not available at the acute 
care hospital where the enrollee is currently receiving care. There are no services available at the LTACH that 
the enrollee requires that are not available at the health care setting being offered by the health plan.  The requested LTACH services are not medically necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and 
condition of the enrollee and able to be furnished safely and effectively only on an inpatient basis. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the urine polymerase chain reaction (PCR) panel testing 
(87481, 87653, 87798) provided November 1, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the laboratory service. You say that you are attaching detailed medical records 
which prove that the service billed were medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
PCR testing is considered unproven and 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 looked at the file and Medicare rules. The PCR testing is considered unproven and not medically necessary. 
Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the laboratory service have not been 
met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the urine polymerase chain reaction (PCR) 
panel testing (87481, 87653, 87798) provided November 1, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for procedure codes 43235 and 99204 rendered on June 2, 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 that the records do not support the services billed. 
 
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 
the denied codes is: 
 
CPT 43235: 
 
Esophagogastroduodenoscopy, flexible, transoral; diagnostic, including collection of specimen(s) by brushing 
or washing, when performed (separate procedure) 
 
CPT 99204: 
 
Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of a new patient, which requires a medically 
appropriate history and/or examination and moderate level of medical decision making. When using time for 
code selection, 45-59 minutes of total time is spent on the date of the encounter 
 
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 supported by the medical records. Our reviewer found that the enrollee underwent endoscopy for 
foreign body in the esophagus, after she was seen in an outpatient clinic with symptoms of food impaction. The 
documentation does support that CPT 43235 was rendered in this case. The documentation also supports CPT 
99204 as a significant and separately identifiable evaluation and management service. 
 
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 been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for 
procedure codes 43235 and 99204 rendered 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve a peripheral nerve stimulator (64555). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a peripheral nerve stimulator. You say that you are requesting 
reconsideration based on medical necessity. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the request is not 
medically necessary. 
 
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 pre-approve a peripheral nerve stimulator. Our 
reviewer says that the requested items/services are considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. 
Our physician reviewer found this is single nerve peripheral stimulation and is supported by the peer reviewed 
literature. The request is deemed 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 a peripheral nerve stimulator have been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan has to pre-approve a peripheral nerve stimulator (64555).  
 
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: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the urine polymerase chain reaction (PCR) panel testing 
provided on January 12, 2023, and billed with codes 87640, 0008U, 87653, 87641, 87505, 87481, 87150, and 
87798. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the urine PCR panel testing. You say that this testing was medically necessary.  
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this testing should be billed with a single panel code. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that a panel cannot be unbundled and billed as 
individual components. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. This test was not billed with a single panel code as required. Based 
on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the urine PCR panel testing have not been 
met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the urine polymerase chain reaction (PCR) panel testing provided on January 12, 2023, and billed with codes 87640, 0008U, 87653, 87641, 87505, 87481, 
87150, and 87798.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for inpatient hospital services provided on August 1, 2022, to 
September 1, 2022, denied on the Plan's itemized Bill determination with denial codes G and B. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the inpatient hospital services provided. You say that the claim was billed 
correctly and should be paid. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested documentation has not 
been provided. 
 
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 inpatient hospital services provided 
have been met. Specifically, the requested itemized billing summary has not been provided for review. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for inpatient hospital services provided on August 1, 
2022, to September 1, 2022, denied on the Plan's itemized Bill determination with denial codes G and B.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a raised toilet seat (E0244). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a raised toilet seat. You say that you disagree with the denial and request 
reconsideration. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says a raised toilet seat is not a covered benefit. 
 
The Plan covers all items that Medicare covers. Medicare rules state that raised toilet seats are not covered 
because they are not primarily medical in nature.  
 
While a raised toilet seat may be appropriate in this case, neither the Plan nor Medicare offers coverage of this 
item. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a raised toilet seat (E0244).
Appeal type: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve additional miles for routine transportation beyond the 
Plan's 50-mile limit. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve additional mileage. You say that you need transportation to an appointment. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested trip exceeds your mileage limit. 
 Medicare does not cover transport in a vehicle that is not an ambulance. However, the Plan offers a 
transportation benefit that exceeds Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plans coverage rules apply in this 
case. The Plan covers routine transportation when each one-way trip does not exceed 50 miles of driving 
distance. 
 
We looked at your request, the records in the case file, and the rules. In this case, the requested transportation 
in greater than 50 miles of driving distance. Based on this information, we decided that the Plans rules for 
coverage of routine transportation have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-
approve additional miles for routine transportation beyond the Plan's 50-mile limit.
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 are requesting an expedited 
reconsideration as the enrollee currently meets LTACH admission criteria. 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for psychotherapy provided on February 14, 2023. 
 
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 consultations in the patients medical record. There was no documentation of contact in the patient record. The 
listing of a referring provider on the claim does not satisfy the documentation criteria. 
 
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 on February 14, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for physician's services provided on December 30, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the physician's services. You say that the services were medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says with the information we have, we cannot determine how the member 
came to the servicing provider, whether the services were performed as billed, or whether the services are 
medically necessary. 
 
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 physician's services have been met. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for physician's services provided on  
December 30, 2022.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve a Freestyle continuous glucose monitor (CGM) sensor and 
supplies (E2103, A4239). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a Freestyle CGM sensor and supplies. You say that the enrollee is diabetic 
and needs to monitor his glucose closely due to fluctuating blood sugars. The Plan denied your request. The 
Plan says that the enrollee meets all criteria for the requested CGM and supplies. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that therapeutic CGMs may be considered reasonable and 
necessary for enrollees with diabetes who meet the criteria referenced in the Medicare rules section. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of a Freestyle CGM sensor and supplies have been met. Specifically, the enrollee meets all criteria for 
the requested CGM and supplies as referenced in the Medicare rules. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to 
pre-approve a Freestyle continuous glucose monitor (CGM) sensor and supplies (E2103, A4239).  
 
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 LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that an LTACH is the appropriate level of 
care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an LTACH admission is not medically necessary.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that LTACH services are covered if they are medically 
necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the LTACH services. Our reviewer says 
that the requested LTACH care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found that there is no documentation that was provided indicating medical necessity for 
admission to a LTACH. The enrollee does not require services at the LTACH that are not available at the acute 
care hospital where the enrollee is currently receiving 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 the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve LTACH services.
Appeal type: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve additional transportation mileage. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve additional transportation mileage. You say that the enrollee needs 
transportation for an urgent appointment on September 21, 2023. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 
this request exceeds the enrollee's benefit limit. 
 Medicare does not cover transport in a vehicle that is not an ambulance. However, the Plan offers a 
transportation benefit that exceeds Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plans coverage rules apply in this 
case. The Plan covers routine transportation when each one-way trip does not exceed 50 miles of driving 
distance. 
 
We looked at your request, the records in the case file, and the rules. Based on this information, we decided 
that the Plans rules for coverage of routine transportation have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve additional transportation mileage.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for procedure code 99212-25 rendered on March 9, 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 that the denied code is not bundled with CPT 20610, as it was not a follow-up visit and was not 
planned. 
 
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 99212 is "Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of an established patient, 
which requires a medically appropriate history and/or examination and straightforward medical decision 
making. When using time for code selection, 10-19 minutes of total time is spent on the date of the encounter." 
 
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 supported by the medical records. Our reviewer found that the records show that injection of the 
knee with steroid was after the evaluation and determination of indication. 
 
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 been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for 
procedure code 99212-25 rendered on March 9, 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 the services are medically necessary due to your 
complex medical needs. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you do not meet the 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 you do not require treatment by multiple therapies. While the medical record 
supports a need for physical or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive rehabilitation 
services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different level of care.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for inpatient hospital services reported with DRG 246 rendered 
from September 1, 2021, to September 5, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the inpatient hospital services at the DRG originally billed. You say that this 
should be paid for. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the DRG was updated. 
 
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 DRG 246. 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 services at issue in this case were not supported by the medical records. Our physician reviewer found 
that the enrollee has coronary artery disease (CAD) but no documentation of congestive heart failure. 
Therefore, DRG 247 is more appropriate.  
 
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 reported with DRG 246 rendered from September 1, 2021, to September 5, 2021.