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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve continued skilled nursing facility (SNF) care after May 
24, 2023. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve continued SNF care. You say that the continued admission to a SNF is 
medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the continued admission to a SNF is not 
medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for care in a SNF when the four factors 
listed in the Medicare rules section are met. Custodial care is not covered. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve continued SNF care. Our reviewer says 
that the requested SNF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare 
guidelines.  Our physician reviewer found the enrollee does not have daily skilled nursing needs that require 
the specialized skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional nurse. The enrollee does not have daily 
skilled therapy needs that require the specialized skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional 
therapist. The enrollee does not require daily skilled nursing and/or skilled therapy on an inpatient basis in a 
skilled nursing facility (SNF) setting. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of continued SNF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve continued skilled nursing facility (SNF) care after May 24, 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 inpatient rehabilitation level of 
care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's records do not show that you need an intensive 
team for your care. Services needed may be provided safely in a lower level of care. 
 
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. 
 
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: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for procedure code 99239 provided on September 8, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 99239. You say that you would like the Plan to reconsider their 
denial of payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that procedure code 99239 is 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 99239 is Hospital discharge day management; more than 30 minutes. 
 
We find that CPT code 99239 is supported in the medical record. Specifically, the records show that more than 
30 minutes of time was spent with the enrollee on the actual discharge day of September 8, 2022. Based on this 
information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of procedure code 99239 have been met. Therefore, 
we decided that the Plan has to pay for procedure code 99239 provided on September 8, 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: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a retainer crown on tooth #3 (D6740). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a retainer crown. You say that the requested dental services are medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that retainer crowns (D6740) are not covered by the 
enrollee's dental benefits. 
 
Medicare generally does not cover dental services. However, the Plan offers a dental benefit that exceeds 
Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plan's coverage rules apply in this case. 
 
Though the Plan offers a dental benefit in excess of Medicare coverage, the requested item or service is not 
among those covered under this benefit. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a 
retainer crown on tooth #3 (D6740).
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's health and recovery will be adversely 
affected if required to wait for admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 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. 
 
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: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an extraction (D7140) for tooth #2 provided on February 7, 
2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the dental service. You say that the extraction was medically necessary because 
the tooth was not salvageable. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the denial of payment for this 
service is correct, because extractions are not covered by the Plan. 
 
Medicare generally does not cover dental services. However, the Plan offers a dental benefit that exceeds 
Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plan's coverage rules apply in this case. 
 
Though the Plan offers a dental benefit in excess of Medicare coverage, the requested item or service is not 
among those covered under this benefit. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an 
extraction (D7140) for tooth #2 provided on February 7, 2023.
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. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
enrollee does not meet all the requirements. Services needed may be provided safely in a lower level of care. 
 
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 there are no services available at the LTACH that the enrollee requires that are not 
available at the current health care setting being offered by the health plan. 
 
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 pre-approve facet joint injections. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve facet joint injections. You say that facet joint injections are medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested facet joint injections do not meet the 
Medicare LCD coverage criteria.  
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules.  
 
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 facet joint injections. Our reviewer says 
that the requested facet joint injections are not considered medically necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found that in this case, there is no documentation indicating that the bilateral L3-L5 MBB in 
January 2023 provided at least 80% relief of primary pain (with the duration of relief being consistent with the 
agent used). The review has determined that the requested service did not meet the coverage criteria and are not 
medically necessary or reasonable. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of facet joint injections have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve facet joint injections.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for transportation of portable X-ray equipment provided on 
December 15, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for transportation of portable X-ray equipment. You say that this service is 
supported in the records. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that unauthorized, out-of-network care is 
not covered. 
 
Medicare rules say that plans can require enrollees to get care from network providers. The contract with the 
Plan says that the Plan has to pay for care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving emergencies, 
out of area urgent care and pre-approved care.  
The provider of the item(s)/service(s) at issue in this appeal is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan 
did not pre-approve the item(s)/service(s) at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay 
for the item(s)/service(s). Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for transportation of 
portable X-ray equipment provided on December 15, 2022.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure codes 87481, 87653 and 87798 billed for date of 
service October 26, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure codes 87481, 87653 and 87798. You say that these services are 
supported in the medical record. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the payment for these services is 
included in the payment for code 87801. 
 
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 codes 87481, 87653 and 87798 are column II codes to column I code 
87801. Codes 87481 and 87653 have not been billed with an appropriate modifier to bypass the edit. Based on 
the claim submitted, Medicare billing criteria have not been met for codes 87481 and 87653. However, code 
87798 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 procedure code 87798. Our reviewer says that the XU 
modifier is not supported with code 87798. Our reviewer found the medical records do not support that the 
services described with this code are separate from those reported with code 87801. 
 
We looked at this coder's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of procedure codes 87481, 87653 and 87798 have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure codes 87481, 87653 and 87798 billed for date of 
service October 26, 2022.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve bone marrow aspirate. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve bone marrow aspirate. 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 bone marrow aspirate. Our reviewer 
says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found bone marrow aspirate remains experimental in spine surgery when used as bone graft 
material. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of bone marrow aspirate have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve bone marrow aspirate.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee can benefit from acute rehab to optimize 
their level of functioning prior to returning home. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an IRF 
admission is not medically necessary, and the enrollee's needs can be met at an alternate level of care.  
 
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 IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for a telehealth visit provided on January 09, 
2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for a telehealth visit. You say that you are disputing the share cost. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this cost sharing was charged correctly. 
 
The rules say a plan must disclose to its enrollees in clear, accurate terms all cost sharing information (such as 
copayments, deductibles and coinsurance). Your contract with the Plan clearly says that you must pay a $40 
copayment for physician/practitioner services, including doctors office visits. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $40 copayment for a telehealth visit. This item/service falls within the 
physician/practitioner services, including doctors office visits benefit category. This means that you have been 
asked to pay the correct amount based on your contract with the Plan. This cost sharing is a contractual obligation you agreed to pay when you enrolled in the Plan. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to waive the copayment for a telehealth visit provided on January 09, 2023.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve angle adjustable backrest, other accessories (K0108). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a wheelchair accessory. You say that you disagree with the denial. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the requested item is not considered to be primarily medical in nature and is 
not covered by Medicare. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that for equipment to be covered, it must primarily serve a 
medical purpose.   
 
The item at issue in this appeal does not serve a purpose that is primarily medical in nature. This item is 
available to the general public and would be helpful even to those who are not sick or injured.  Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve angle adjustable backrest, other accessories (K0108).
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the cervical sleep pillow (E1399). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the cervical sleep pillow. You say that the item is medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says this is not a covered item. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that for equipment to be covered, it must primarily serve a 
medical purpose.   
 
The item at issue in this appeal does not serve a purpose that is primarily medical in nature. This item is 
available to the general public and would be helpful even to those who are not sick or injured.  Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the cervical sleep pillow (E1399).
Appeal type: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the ambulance response and treatment with no transport 
(A0998) provided on October 5, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the ambulance response and treatment with no transport. You say that you did 
not take the ambulance transportation to the hospital because they made you feel better, and you thought you 
would save everybody money. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you were evaluated, and you 
declined transport to the emergency room. The Plan also says that this service is not covered. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare does not pay for ambulance services when 
there is no transport.  
 
The ambulance company did not provide transport services on October 5, 2022. The ambulance benefit is a 
transportation benefit. When there is no transport, neither Medicare nor the Plan pays for the services provided. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the ambulance response and treatment with no 
transport (A0998) provided on October 5, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the chiropractic manipulative treatments (98941) provided 
from January 6, 2021, through July 28, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for these services. You say that you are requesting a reconsideration of the Plan's 
denial for payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services are not payable as the claim was 
submitted untimely. 
  
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that claims for services furnished on or after January 1, 2010, 
must be filed no later than one calendar year after the date of service. 
 
The record shows that a claim for these services was not filed until August 10, 2022. This means that more than 
one calendar year from the dates of service at issue had passed before a claim was filed. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan does not have to pay for the chiropractic manipulative treatments (98941) provided from  
January 6, 2021, through July 28, 2021.
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 deserves to regain maximum function in 
the least amount of time with the 3 hours of therapy 5/7 days a week. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says the enrollee's current medical status is stable and does not require intensive physician and nursing 
oversight. 
 
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. 
 
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.