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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code S9328 billed for date of service August 13, 
2023, to September 9, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code S9328. You say that there are no network providers in the 
patient's area to provide these services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the billed code is invalid 
for Medicare purposes.  
 
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 S9328 has a Status Indicator of I on the Physician Fee Schedule. This means that 
procedure code S9328 is not valid for Medicare purposes. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare 
rules for coverage of procedure code S9328 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pay for procedure code S9328 billed for date of service August 13, 2023, to September 9, 2023.
Appeal type: Outpatient Mental Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for psychotherapy provided on August 14, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for psychotherapy. You say that the services should be covered. 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 psychotherapy provided 
on August 14, 2023.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for 13 additional units of procedure code 88341 rendered on 
June 15, 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 records do not support the services billed. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate CPT code. 
 
In this case, the CPT Code Manual definition of code 88341 is "Immunohistochemistry or 
immunocytochemistry, per specimen; each additional single antibody stain procedure (List separately in 
addition to code for primary procedure)." 
 
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 13 units of 88341 are not 
supported. The record does not contain results for additional immunocytochemisry antibody stains. 
 
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 13 additional units of procedure code 88341 rendered on June 15, 2023.
Appeal type: ER
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 99284 billed for date of service August 22, 
2023. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 99284. You say that the enrollee had multiple exams on this date. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says payment for code 99284 is bundled into payment for code 99285. 
 
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 99284 
is a column II code to column I code 99285. 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 99284 billed for date of service August 22, 2023.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the PET/CT. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the PET/CT. You say that the requested imaging will be used to plan the 
best course for treatment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested study would exceed the 
allowed limit of 3 scans. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that PET scans are covered only when they are 
medically necessary.  
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the PET/CT. Our reviewer says that the 
requested PET/CT is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee has had 
surveillance imaging with PET CT for increased cancer antigen 15-3 (CA 15-3) since 2014. As it has been 
nearly 18 years since the initial treatment and there are no signs of recurrent disease, continual PET scan for 
monitoring is no longer medically necessary. Routine surveillance with other diagnostic studies may be 
performed at this time. 
 We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the PET/CT have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a PET/CT.
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 an IRF admission. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the requirements for an 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 does not 
require an acute 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, 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. There is not a 
reasonable expectation that this enrollee will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive 
rehabilitation program provided in an IRF. 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: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a positron emission tomography (PET) with 
concurrently acquired computed tomography (CT) for attenuation correction and anatomical localization 
imaging; skull base to mid-thigh (78815). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a PET scan. You say that you disagree with the denial. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet criteria for approval of a PET scan. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that PET scans are covered only when they are 
medically necessary.  
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve a PET scan. Our reviewer says that the 
service is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has a history of prostate cancer. 
Due to undetectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) the past 2 times of measurement, the medical necessity of 
the requested prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET/CT has not been established in the submitted 
records. 
 We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of a PET scan have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a positron emission tomography (PET) with concurrently acquired computed tomography 
(CT) for attenuation correction and anatomical localization imaging; skull base to mid-thigh (78815).
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an epidural steroid injection. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the injection. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an epidural 
steroid injection 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 injection. Our reviewer says that an 
epidural steroid injection is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that there was no 
documentation indicating that the previous epidural steroid injection on March 9, 2023, provided 50% of 
sustained improvement in pain relief or improvement in function measured from baseline using SAME scale 
for at least three months. The requested epidural steroid injection does not appear to be via a different approach 
or with a different medication. Therefore, the enrollee does not meet the LCD coverage criteria. 
 
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 injection have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve an epidural steroid injection.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for laboratory services (procedure code 87640 and 87491) 
rendered on June 13, 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 records do not support the services billed. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate CPT code. 
 
In this case, the CPT Code Manual definition of the denied codes is: 
 
CPT 87640: 
 
Infectious agent detection by nucleic acid (DNA or RNA); Staphylococcus aureus, amplified probe technique 
 
CPT 87491: 
 
Infectious agent detection by nucleic acid (DNA or RNA); Chlamydia trachomatis, amplified probe technique. 
 
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 87491 is not supported. The 
record does not contain evidence that an infectious agent detection for chlamydia trachomatis was performed. 
Additionally, 87640 is not supported as a separately identifiable procedure. The record shows that this is 
included in 87641 and should not be reported separately. 
 
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 laboratory services (procedure code 87640 and 87491) rendered on June 13, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for the evaluation and management services described by code 99233 
billed for date of service July 13, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for 99233. You say that 99233 should be paid as billed because it was coded 
accurately, and all diagnoses assigned are listed as payable. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that 
99233 is denied because two of the billed diagnoses on the claim cannot be reported together. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare health plans must make reasonable and 
diligent efforts to gather and forward to the IRE information regarding its decision to deny coverage or 
payment. 
 
The Plan has not made reasonable and diligent efforts to gather and forward to us information regarding their 
decision to deny your request. We find that the Plan's denial reason is that two of the billed codes on the claim, 
R46.89 and F10.929 are not allowed to be reported together. The Plan has not provided any proof or 
documentation, such as a claim image, that codes R46.89 and F10.929 were, in fact, both reported together on 
the claim for 99223. As such, we are unable to confirm if the Plan's denial reason is correct. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan has to pay for the evaluation and management services described by code 99233 billed for 
date of service July 13, 2023.  
 
If the Plan does not agree with our decision, they can ask us to open a case again. We only open a case again 
if we believe there was a mistake or if there is new information to review. The Plan has to show us the mistake 
and/or send us the new information. This does not happen often. If we decide to open the case again, we will 
send you a letter.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve home health aide visits (G0156x6) and home health 
skilled nursing visits (G0299x6). 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve home health services. You say that the requested services are medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services are not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that home health care services may be covered if it is 
medically necessary for the enrollee to receive skilled nursing or therapy. A doctor must certify the need for 
home health care services. 
 
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 home health services. Our reviewer 
says that the services are not medically reasonable and necessary. Our physician reviewer found clinical 
documentation does not specify any acute clinical status changes, acute or worsening wounds, medication, or 
plan of care changes. The records do not show that 6 home health skilled nursing visit/units are required to 
effectively provide treatment, care, and/or services in order to improve the enrollee's condition, or to 
establish/perform a maintenance program to maintain the enrollee's condition and/or prevent deterioration. 
Clinical documentation does not specify any plan of care in which home health aide services would be 
considered reasonable and necessary to the treatment of the enrollee's illness or injury by skilled professional 
staff. The 6 additional home health aide visit/unis are not medically 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 home health services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve home health aide visits (G0156x6) and home health skilled nursing visits 
(G0299x6).
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 an IRF admission is medically necessary for you to 
return to your prior level of function. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an IRF admission is not 
medically necessary, but skilled therapies as an outpatient or at a skilled nursing facility may be approved upon 
request.  
 
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 your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not require an 
acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. Your medical problems 
are stable and 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 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 code 99213-25 rendered on December 6, 2021. 
 
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 records do not support the services billed. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate CPT code. 
 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 medical record is of very poor 
quality and illegible. The services cannot be verified. 
 
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 code 99213-25 rendered on December 6, 2021.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve SNF care. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that the enrollee requires daily support and education to 
manage their colostomy bag. You say that the enrollee is receiving wound care at the colostomy site.  The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says a SNF admission 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 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 that 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 or skilled therapy on an inpatient basis in a 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 SNF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve SNF care.
Appeal type: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for home health services provided from June 15, 2022, to July 
14, 2022. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for the home health services. You say that you believe you are an in-network 
provider and that a NOA is on file. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the NOA was not received 
timely. As such, this final claim was correctly denied.  
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that an NOA must be submitted within 5 days of the start of 
care date for home health services. NOAs which are received more than 30 days from the timely filing date 
result in no payment being made for the episode of care.  
 
In this case, the start of care date is June 15, 2022. The NOA was not received by the Plan until December 13, 
2022. As more than 30 days passed between the timely filing date and the NOA receipt, no payment can be 
made on this claim. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for home health services provided 
from June 15, 2022, to July 14, 2022.