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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a sacroiliac (SI) joint injection (64625). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve an SI joint injection. You say that the services are necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says medical necessity has not been established. Therefore, coverage criteria 
have not been met. 
 
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 an SI joint injection. 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 imaging showing SI joint severe degenerative joint disease (DJD) and no 
physical exam showing SI joint pain that correlates with imaging. The injection is not needed 
 We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of an SI joint injection have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve a sacroiliac (SI) joint injection (64625).
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Aranesp (J0882). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the medication. You say that the request is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the step therapy requirements and LCD coverage criteria have not been met. 
 
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 physician reviewer 
found the insurer requires documentation of iron status for approval and it is not contained within the 
documents reviewed. With proper documentation this medication would be approved.  
 
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 Aranesp (J0882).
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 due to medical complexity the enrollee needs to be 
admitted so that the they will be able to receive a comprehensive rehabilitation for a safe discharge home. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the records do not show that the enrollee has complex rehabilitation 
needs that require frequent evaluation by a rehab doctor.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section.  
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee continues to have a need for skilled therapy with ongoing safety 
concerns and a potential for functional improvement however, the documentation doesnt support that they 
would meet criteria for admission to an acute inpatient rehabilitation facility. There is no indication that the 
enrollee would require skilled rehabilitation in an IRF, participating in rehab services 15 hours a week, under 
the supervision of a physician with at least 3 visits weekly to regain or maintain their functional status. The 
enrollee can receive further services at a lower level of care.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the office visit (99212), x-ray exam of the entire spine 
(72082), x-ray exam of the spine 1 view (72020), unlisted special service (99199), x-ray exam of the eye 
(70030), physical or manipulative therapy (S8990), home infusion therapy (S5035) provided by a chiropractor 
on April 5, 2023.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the office visit (99212), x-ray exam of the entire spine (72082), x-ray exam of 
the spine 1 view (72020), unlisted special service (99199), x-ray exam of the eye (70030), physical or 
manipulative therapy (S8990), home infusion therapy (S5035). You say that since you started your treatment it 
has help you tremendously. You say that you are very impressed with the physician's knowledge and 
professionalism. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the only covered chiropractic service is manual 
manipulation of the spine. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that the only chiropractic service Medicare covers is 
manual manipulation of the spine to correct a subluxation.  
 
The records show that the service at issue is not manual manipulation of the spine. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pay for the office visit (99212), x-ray exam of the entire spine (72082), x-ray exam of 
the spine 1 view (72020), unlisted special service (99199), x-ray exam of the eye (70030), physical or 
manipulative therapy (S8990), home infusion therapy (S5035) provided by a chiropractor on April 5, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for evaluation and management services (procedure code 99223 
and 99233) rendered from April 8, 2023, to April 10, 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 code 99223 is initial hospital inpatient or observation care, per 
day, for the evaluation and management of a patient, which requires a medically appropriate history and/or 
examination and high level of medical decision making. When using total time on the date of the encounter for 
code selection, 75 minutes must be met or exceeded. The definition of code 99233 is subsequent hospital 
inpatient or observation care, per day, for the evaluation and management of a patient, which requires a medically appropriate history and/or examination and high level of medical decision making. When using total 
time on the date of the encounter for code selection, 50 minutes must be met or exceeded. 
 
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 found code 99223 can be used for 
an initial hospital care evaluation and management of a patient that requires 3 key components. The 3 key 
components are a comprehensive history, comprehensive examination and medical decision making of high 
complexity. Usually, the medical problem that requires admission is of high severity and 70 minutes are spent 
at the bedside and on the patients hospital floor or unit. According to Medicare, CPT code 99233 can be used 
for subsequent hospital care, per day, for the evaluation and management of a patient with at least 2 of the 3 
key components: a detailed interval history, a detailed examination, medical decision making of high 
complexity. Usually, the patient is unstable or has developed a significant complication or a significant new 
problem and takes approximately 35 minutes at the bedside or the patients hospital floor or unit. In this case, 
the documentation does not support the CPT codes 99223 and 99233. The documentation available for review 
does not support the enrollee developed a significant complication or that medical decision making of high 
complexity was needed. 
 
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 evaluation and management services (procedure code 99223 and 99233) rendered from April 8, 
2023, to April 10, 2023.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for the specialist physician services rendered
on February 8, 2023.

You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for these services. You say that the copayment should be waived.
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this cost sharing was charged correctly. Maximus overturned the
Plans denial. The Plan requested a reopen and provided additional information.

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 $45
copayment for each covered visit or consultation in an outpatient location with a specialist.

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. Therefore, we decided that the Plan
does not have to waive the copayment for the specialist physician services rendered on February 8, 2023.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 27442 billed for date of service June 20, 
2023. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 27442. You say that this should be paid for. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says payment for code 27442 is bundled into payment for code 27438. 
 
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 27442 
is a column II code to column I code 27438. This claim has not been billed with an appropriate modifier to 
bypass the edit. Based on the claim submitted, Medicare billing criteria have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 27442 billed for date of service June 20, 2023.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the urine polymerase chain reaction (PCR) panel rendered on 
July 29, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for these services. You say that you disagree with the denial. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the testing is not covered. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that urinalysis is the standard of care for a urinary tract 
infection (UTI). 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The file shows that the services at issue exceeded the standard of care 
for the diagnosis and treatment of a UTI. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of these services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the 
urine polymerase chain reaction (PCR) panel rendered on July 29, 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 services are medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does 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 at the time of the request for an IRF admission the enrollee is medically stable. 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 inpatient rehabilitation facility services are 
medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the inpatient rehabilitation facility services 
are 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 rehabilitation hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. 
The enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational 
therapy, at an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. The enrollee continues to have a need for skilled 
therapy with ongoing safety concerns and a potential for functional improvement; however, the documentation 
does not support that the enrollee would meet criteria for admission to an 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 their functional status. The enrollee can receive further services at a lower level of care.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the acute inpatient hospital care. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for acute inpatient hospital care. You say that the enrollee will need inpatient 
admission after surgery The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the stay is not medically necessary. 
 
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 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 provided documentation did not reveal the enrollee with an unstable condition or 
at high risk of complication for this typically ambulatory procedure. It is not expected that the enrollee will 
require hospital care that would likely cross 2 midnights or lead to adverse events if discharged home without 
admission.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of 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.
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 enrollees 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. There is not a reasonable expectation that this 
individual will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy program 
provided in an inpatient rehabilitation facility. The enrollee continues to have a need for skilled therapy with 
ongoing safety concerns and a potential for functional improvement however, the documentation does not 
support that the enrollee 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 their functional status. The enrollee can receive further services at a lower level of care.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you are requesting reconsideration of denied 
authorization. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the coverage criteria has 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 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 
does not support that the enrollee 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 their functional status. The enrollee can receive further services at a lower level of care.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for self -administered drugs on July 30, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the medication. You say that you were given tobramycin to self-administer. 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 pay for self -administered drugs on July 
30, 2023.  
 
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.