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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Intracept procedure (64628). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the Intracept procedure. 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 Intracept procedure. Our reviewer 
says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found there is no magnetic resonance imaging showing only modic changes without facet 
degenerative joint disease or stenosis. The cause of pain is not clear. 
 
   
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 Intracept procedure have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve the Intracept procedure (64628).
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the acute inpatient hospital care provided from June 6, 2023, 
to June 7, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the acute inpatient hospital care. You say that this hospital stay was medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee could have been treated in the observation 
setting. 
 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 acute inpatient hospital care. Our 
reviewer says that the documentation does not support that the criteria for inpatient payment are met in this 
case. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee presented to the hospital with abdominal pain and reduced 
frequency of bowel movements. He had mural thickening in the ileocecal region on advanced imaging with a 
recommendation for endoscopic evaluation. He was discharged the following day. The documentation does not 
support that a hospital stay crossing two midnights was reasonably expected.  
 
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 acute inpatient hospital care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pay for the acute inpatient hospital care provided from June 6, 2023, to June 7, 2023.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Tymlos. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the medication. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the medication is not covered as a medical benefit under the Plan. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare Part B generally does not pay for self-
administered drugs. The self-administered drugs requested here are not among the types which are covered by 
Medicare Part B. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Tymlos.   
Benefits for the medication may be available under Medicare Part D. Contact the Plan that administers Part D 
benefits for further information concerning any benefits and appeal rights.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the cala trio device (K1018, K1019). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the cala trio device . You say that the items are medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the items are considered experimental. 
 
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 cala trio device . Our reviewer says 
that the requested items are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found this item is considered experimental. 
 
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 cala trio device  have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve the cala trio device (K1018, K1019).
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve darbepoetin alfa, (Aranesp) injection, 1 microgram 
(non-ESRD use) (J0881). 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve the medication. You say that you request reconsideration because the 
requested Aranesp (J0881) is medically necessary for the enrollees treatment for anemia of chronic kidney 
disease. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this request does not meet the Plan's step therapy criteria 
for the requested drug. 
 
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 the medication. Our reviewer says that 
the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found the Plan requires a trial of drug Retacrit or Procrit before they will approve the requested drug. 
In this case, the enrollee has not tried and failed the required drug(s). There is no documentation provided 
indicating that the Plan's required drug(s) would likely be less effective and/or likely have adverse effects for 
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 the medication have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve darbepoetin alfa, (Aranesp) injection, 1 microgram (non-ESRD use) (J0881).
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for practitioner services provided on July 5, 2023, billed with procedure 
code 64415-59-LT. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the practitioner services provided. You say that the claim is billed correctly and 
should be paid. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that documentation does not support the billed 
code. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate CPT code. In this case, we have confirmed that code 
64415-59-LT is a column II code to column I code 01630; however, 64415-59-LT was billed with a modifier. 
 
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 practitioner services provided. Our reviewer says that 
documentation does support the billed code. Our reviewer found that the medical record describes, post 
operative pain management (Interscalene Block) was performed for post operative pain per surgeon request 
prior to anesthesia procedure at 08:25, and anesthesia service was started at 08:30. Per Medicare guidelines, 
post op pain management can be separately reported when requested by surgeon; anesthesia service is not 
dependent on the injection; and may be administered preoperative; intraoperative and postoperative. Therefore, 
this service should be covered. 
 
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 practitioner services provided have been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan has to pay for practitioner services provided on July 5, 2023, billed with procedure code 64415-59-LT.  
 
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 based upon the enrollee's current 
level of function and nursing needs as of November 30, 2023, the enrollee does not require skilled services on a 
daily basis.  
 
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 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 
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 rehabilitation 
services 15 hours a week, under the supervision of a physician with at least 3 visits weekly to regain or 
maintain her 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 needs a higher level of care prior to 
being discharged back home. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 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 that the enrollees medical problems are stable and there are no complex nursing or 
rehabilitation needs. While the medical record supports a need for physical or occupational therapy, there is no 
documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different 
level of care.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the air ambulance services provided on May 10, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the air ambulance services. You say that the enrollee was not stable for discharge 
at the time of the transfer nor stable for a commercial flight. You say that the enrollee required a milrinone drip and was not able to tolerate Lasix. You also say that the air-ambulance transport was medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says this was not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for air ambulance services only if your 
medical condition is such that transportation by ground ambulance is not appropriate.  
 
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 air ambulance services. Our reviewer 
says that the air ambulance transport was not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the provided 
records indicate that the you suffered from an illness or injury that contraindicated transportation by any means 
other than ambulance. The reviewer found that the records do not document that your condition could not have 
been managed at a hospital within a reasonable distance for ground transportation. The reviewer also found that 
the provided records show that your condition required services at an alternative facility for a heart transplant 
evaluation due to his wishes regarding blood transfusion and organ transplant. Therefore, the reviewer found 
that the air ambulance transport was 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 the air ambulance services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pay for the air ambulance services provided on May 10, 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 requires an IRF admission to improve 
their overall function and safety at home. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the admission is not 
medically necessary because the enrollee's medical condition requires further evaluation and treatment in the 
acute care hospital.  
 
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: 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 do not feel safe going home because you are 
needing assistance with activities of daily living. You say that you want to be approved for an IRF admission 
so that you can learn how to transfer and take care of yourself. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 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 that your medical problems are stable and there are no complex nursing or 
rehabilitation needs. While the medical record supports a need for physical or occupational therapy, there is no 
documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different 
level of care.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve 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 99140 and 00731 billed for date of service 
July 17, 2023.  
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure codes 99140 and 00731. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 
these codes are not separately payable. 
 
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 99140 has a status indicator of B on the Physician Fee Schedule. This means that 
procedure code 99140 is not separately payable. Additionally, as anesthesia code 01500 was billed and paid for 
the same date of service, code 00731 is included in the pay rate for 01500, and is not separately payable. Based 
on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of procedure codes 99140 and 00731 have not 
been met.  Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure codes 99140 and 00731 
billed for date of service July 17, 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 is in need of a higher level of care that 
can only be provided in an IRF. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request is not medically 
necessary.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found that the enrollees medical problems are stable and there are no complex nursing or 
rehabilitation needs. While the medical record supports a need for physical or occupational therapy, there is no 
documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different 
level of care.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Firmagon. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Firmagon. You say that the requested drug is medically necessary to treat 
the enrollee's diagnosis. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested drug is not covered under 
the enrollee's Part B coverage when dispensed by a pharmacy. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that, in order to be eligible for coverage under Part B, 
drugs/biologicals must represent an expense to the rendering physician and be included in the physician's bill. 
 
In this case, we have confirmed that the requested medication will be dispensed by a pharmacy and will be 
brought to the office for administration. Since the medication does not represent an expense to the physician 
and will not be included in the physician's bill, it is not eligible for Part B coverage. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pre-approve Firmagon.  
 
  Benefits for Firmagon may be available under Medicare Part D. Contact the Plan that administers Part D 
benefits for further information concerning any benefits and appeal rights.