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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve kyphoplasty (22515, 22513). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve kyphoplasty. You say that the services are necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says based on the documentation provided, coverage criteria has not been met. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that both PVP and PVA will be considered reasonable and 
necessary for osteoporotic conditions when specific criteria are met. 
  
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 kyphoplasty. Our reviewer says that the 
services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee's pain is not clearly 
documented to be worsening. (She does have a pain level rated at 7.) Detailed documentation is not evident 
regarding the progression of vertebral body height loss, > 25% vertebral body height reduction, kyphotic 
deformity, severe impact of vertebral compression fracture on daily functioning (Roland Morris Disability 
Questionnaire (RDQ) > 17), and/or steroid-induced fractures. Therefore, the enrollee does not meet the 
coverage criteria detailed in the LCD. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of kyphoplasty have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve kyphoplasty (22515, 22513).
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 an expedited appeal for the denial 
of an IRF admission and are providing a clinical summary and clinical documentation to support this request. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request for an IRF admission 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 do not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure codes 96365, 96366, 96521 and J1817 rendered on 
February 6, 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 the denied codes are not supported in the records submitted. 
 
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 96365: 
 
Intravenous infusion, for therapy, prophylaxis, or diagnosis (specify substance or drug); initial, up to 1 hour  
CPT 96366: 
 
Intravenous infusion, for therapy, prophylaxis, or diagnosis (specify substance or drug); each additional hour 
(List separately in addition to code for primary procedure) 
 
CPT 96521: 
 
Refilling and maintenance of portable pump 
 
Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) J1817: 
 
Insulin for administration through dme (i.e., insulin pump) per 50 units 
 
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 the denied codes are not 
supported. The record states that the patient was closely observed throughout the session and glucose was 
monitored. The insulin was administered through an infusion pump, not durable medical equipment. There is a 
more specific code to report the services provided. 
 
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 codes 96365, 96366, 96521 and J1817 rendered on February 6, 2023.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 88291 billed for date of service January 25, 
2023.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 88291. You say that the services were medically necessary. 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 88291 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 
provided, correctly coded, and medically necessary. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules 
for coverage of procedure code 88291 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pay for procedure code 88291 billed for date of service January 25, 2023.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for the inpatient services provided from July 12, 2022, to July 14, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the inpatient services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that this 
service was not authorized. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that inpatient hospital care is covered when the doctor 
expects the patient to need hospital care that crosses at least two midnights. In rare and unusual cases, 
consideration may be given to inpatient hospital care when the hospital stay does not cross two midnights or 
more. 
 
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 services. Our reviewer says that 
the documentation supports that the criteria for inpatient payment are met in this case. Our physician reviewer 
found the record showed that at the time of inpatient admission the admitting physician reasonably expected 
that the enrollee's necessary hospital care (including earlier emergency department and/or observation care) 
would span two midnights. 
 
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 inpatient services have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to 
pay for the inpatient services provided from July 12, 2022, to July 14, 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve additional power wheelchair accessories (K0108, 
E2311, E2313, E2377). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the accessories. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says this 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 the accessories. Our reviewer says that 
the requested services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found that the enrollee has adequate strength to manage the standard power drives. The expandable 
controller is not medically necessary to meet the enrollee's needs. The transit kit refers to transit outside the 
home and is not medically necessary to perform mobility-related activities of daily living. 
 
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 accessories have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve additional power wheelchair accessories (K0108, E2311, E2313, E2377).
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the cost sharing for the physical therapy services provided by 
an in-network provider from January 4, 2023, to February 1, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the cost sharing for the physical therapy services. You say that you were under the 
impression that you would have no cost share for these services. 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. Your 
contract with the Plan says that there is a $800 deductible which applies to physical therapy services, and that 
you must pay a 10% coinsurance of the approved amount and the annual deductible applies. 
 
 You have been asked to pay a $26.88 coinsurance for the physical therapy services ($268.74 allowed amount x 
.10 = $26.88 rounded up). You have also been asked to pay a $725.58 deductible for the physical therapy 
services ($120.93 deductible x 6 services = $725.58). The items or services you asked the Plan to waive the 
cost sharing for fall within the physical therapy benefit category. The Plan has followed Medicare rules by 
clearly disclosing in the contract that there is a $800 deductible which applies to physical therapy services. This 
cost sharing is a contractual obligation that had not been met at the time the physical therapy services were 
provided on January 4, 2023, to February 1, 2023. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to waive 
the cost sharing for the physical therapy services provided by an in-network provider from January 4, 2023, to 
February 1, 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 you are requesting an expedited reconsideration as 
the enrollee currently meets IRF admission criteria. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the IRF 
services requested do not meet the requirements for approval.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. While the 
medical record supports a need for physical or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive 
rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different level of care. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve 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 Medicare coverage criteria have not been met.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found that the complexity of your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not require 
an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. You were admitted for 
surgical management of infected artificial knee joint. Your medical problems are stable. There are no complex 
nursing or rehabilitation needs. You do 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 you will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation 
therapy program provided in an IRF. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve use of Reblozyl. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Reblozyl. You say that you are appealing with supporting records. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says this is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare may pay for unlabeled uses for FDA-
approved drugs if they are medically accepted as safe and effective or appropriate for the particular use.  
 
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 Reblozyl. Our reviewer says that the 
enrollee does not meet criteria for use of Reblozyl. Our physician reviewer found Reblozyl is not Food & Drug 
Administration (FDA) approved for the enrollee's diagnosis. This use is not supported by one of the major drug 
compendia or by clinical research that appears in a Medicare approved medical journal. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Reblozyl have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve use of Reblozyl.
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 feel the enrollee meets Medicare criteria for 
acute inpatient rehabilitation that cannot be accomplished at a lower level of care. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet Medicare guidelines for services in an IRF.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. While the 
medical record supports a need for physical or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive 
rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different level of care. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a home ventilator. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the ventilator. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the ordered settings for the noninvasive ventilator can be delivered by a bi-level 
positive airway pressure (PAP) machine with average volume-assured pressure support (AVAPS) capability. 
 
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. 
 
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 ventilator. Our reviewer says that the requested ventilator is not medically reasonable or necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the 
provided records document that the home ventilator is being requested for use in average volume assured 
pressure support (AVAPS) mode with auto-EPAP (AE) which could be provided by a bilevel positive airway 
pressure (BiPAP) device with AVAPS and a back-up rate. The 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 the ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a home ventilator.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure codes 96365, 96366, 96521 and J1817 rendered on 
February 1, 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 the denied codes remain 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 the denied codes is: 
 
CPT 96365: 
 
Intravenous infusion, for therapy, prophylaxis, or diagnosis (specify substance or drug); initial, up to 1 hour  
CPT 96366: 
 
Intravenous infusion, for therapy, prophylaxis, or diagnosis (specify substance or drug); each additional hour 
(List separately in addition to code for primary procedure) 
 
CPT 96521: 
 
Refilling and maintenance of portable pump 
 
Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) J1817: 
 
Insulin for administration through dme (i.e., insulin pump) per 50 units 
 
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 the procedure report describes 
outpatient intravenous insulin treatment was performed. There are more specific codes to use for these services 
provided. 
 
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 codes 96365, 96366, 96521 and J1817 rendered on February 1, 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 you are requesting a fast appeal for the denial of an 
IRF admission. You say the enrollee needs close internal medicine and rehabilitation monitoring which they 
would not get at sub-acute rehabilitation. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an IRF admission is not 
supported based on the records received. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. While the 
medical record supports a need for physical 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.