Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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 these services are medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the required services can be provided in an alternate setting.  
 
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 rehab hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The 
enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies. 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. 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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve thermal destruction of intraosseous basivertebral nerve, 
including all imaging guidance; first 2 vertebral bodies, lumbar or sacral (64628). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve an Intracept procedure. You say that you disagree with the denial and 
request reconsideration of the denial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the records do not show 
documentation of Modic changes on a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and there are compression fractures 
suspicious for being the etiology of the enrollee's pain. 
 
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 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. Medical necessity criteria are not met. 
 
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 Intracept Procedure have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve thermal destruction of intraosseous basivertebral nerve, including all imaging 
guidance; first 2 vertebral bodies, lumbar or sacral (64628).
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the outpatient hospital services rendered on February 21, 
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 primary diagnosis is not appropriate. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that claims must be billed with the most precise diagnosis 
code. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The file shows that the services were not billed with an appropriate primary diagnosis code. 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 outpatient hospital 
services rendered on February 21, 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 needs this care to return to baseline. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says medical records do not support the need for an IRF admission and, the 
enrollee needs can be provided at another setting.  
 
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 does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either 
physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. 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. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different 
level of care.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for the subsequent hospital inpatient care (99233) provided on January 8, 
2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the inpatient hospital care. You say that the patient was being observed during 
the date of service. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that POS 22 (outpatient hospital) was billed, 
however, documentation received indicates the patient received inpatient hospital care (POS 21). 
 
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 did not provide a copy of the full inpatient claim to verify 
the admission date that was reported. Per the progress note care timeline, the enrollee was not admitted to 
inpatient status until January 10, 2023. As such, based on the evidence in the case file, we find that the correct 
POS code was reported, and the denial of payment is not substantiated. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has  
to pay for the subsequent hospital inpatient care (99233) provided on January 8, 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve destruction by neurolytic agent, genicular nerve 
branches including imaging guidance (64624). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve genicular radiofrequency ablation. You say that you disagree with the 
denial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested procedure is considered experimental, 
investigational, or unproven. 
 
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 genicular radiofrequency ablation. Our 
reviewer says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this 
case. Our physician reviewer found genicular nerve ablation is experimental and investigational for knee pain. 
There is more research needed due to efficacy. We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of genicular radiofrequency ablation have not been met. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan does not have to pre-approve destruction by neurolytic agent, genicular nerve branches including 
imaging guidance (64624).
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for lab services provided on January 28, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the lab services. You say that this patient was no longer an inpatient when seen 
in your office. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you billed with an incorrect place of service on the 
claim. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that, for lab services, the POS code must reflect the 
location in which the sample was taken. POS code 81 is used to describe samples taken by the laboratory directly. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of the lab services have not been met. Specifically, this claim was billed with the laboratory POS 
code. The records do not support that the sample was taken in a laboratory setting. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pay for lab services provided on January 28, 2021.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for IRF admission and services provided from April 3, 2023, to 
April 14, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for IRF care. You say that the enrollee required IRF services. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says inpatient rehabilitation was 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 pay for IRF care. Our reviewer says that the IRF 
care was 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 did not meet the 
requirements for an IRF admission. The enrollee was medically stable and did not require treatment by multiple 
therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation program. 
During the IRF stay, there were no major medical problems identified or treated. The enrollee's rehabilitation 
needs could have been met at a lower intensity and alternate setting such as a skilled nursing facility. 
 
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 pay for IRF admission and services provided from April 3, 2023, to April 14, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 99100 billed for date of service June 12, 
2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 99100. You say that you have provided medical records to 
support payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says procedure code 99100 is considered bundled 
and 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 99100 has a status indicator of B on the Physician Fee Schedule. This means that 
procedure code 99100 is not separately payable. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of procedure code 99100 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay 
for procedure code 99100 billed for date of service June 12, 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 needs this level of care to maximize 
function and mobility. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollees medical condition does not 
require IRF services, and care can be provided in another setting.  
 
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 medical, rehabilitation, and nursing needs does not 
require IRF care with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitative 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 IRF care is necessary. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says IRF care is not medically necessary.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical, and rehabilitation needs do not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. 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 records support a need for physical and/or 
occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. 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.  Medically necessary care can be provided in a different 
level of care.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee needs this care to regain strength and 
function. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollees medical condition does not require IRF 
services, and care can be provided in another setting.  
 
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 medical, rehabilitation, and nursing needs does not 
require IRF care with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitative 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 the requested IRF admission is necessary due to the 
level of care needed and continuity of care for the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
notes do not show that the enrollee's care specifically requires the involvement of a doctor in the field of 
Rehabilitation Medicine; the notes do not show that the enrollee has complex care needs that require a 
coordinated team approach; the notes do not show that the enrollee must have an intensive therapy program (3 
hours a day, at least 5 days a week) in order 
to improve self-care functioning.   
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 and can be 
provided in a lower level of care. The enrollee requires treatment by multiple therapies, including physical 
therapy and occupational therapy, but this can be provided in a lower level of care. There is documentation that 
there is 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, but the services required can be provided 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: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a complete upper denture (D5210). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the dental item. You say that the enrollee lost their dentures. You also say 
that there is a letter included from their provider with proof of their medical condition and in need for dentures. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says your benefit for the requested item has already been exhausted. 
 
Medicare generally does not cover dental services. However, the Plan offers a dental benefit that exceeds 
Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plans coverage rules apply in this case.  
Though the Plan offers a dental benefit in excess of Medicare coverage, certain limitations apply. The record 
shows your benefit for the requested item or service was exhausted on date of service December 20, 2021. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a complete upper denture (D5210).
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the evaluation and management services coded as 99232 
billed on April 2, 2023, and 99239 billed on April 3, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for 99232 and 99239. You say that 99232 and 99239 should be paid as billed 
because they are supported in the documentation. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 99232 and 
99239 are denied because the record does not include documentation of these services being performed on the 
billed dates. 
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that the provider, supplier, or beneficiary, as 
appropriate, must furnish to the intermediary or carrier sufficient information to determine whether payment is 
due and the amount of payment. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. While the case file includes documentation for other dates of service, 
there are no medical records or evaluation and management notes for the dates of service in question in this 
case, April 2, 2023, and April 3, 2023. Based on this information, we decided that there is insufficient 
information in the record to determine if Medicare rules for coverage of 99232 and 99239 have been met.  
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the evaluation and management services coded as 
99232 billed on April 2, 2023, and 99239 billed on April 3, 2023.