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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure codes 95861 and 95999 billed for date of service 
May 11, 2022.   
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure codes 95861 and 95999. You say that the claim is billed correctly and 
should be paid. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the number of units billed exceeds the maximum 
allowed.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that submitted claims in which the unit of service 
exceeds the MUE value cannot be paid when the MAI value is 3, unless there is evidence justifying the excess 
units.  
 
In this case, the MUE for CPT code 95861 is 1. The MAI value for this code is 3. You billed 2 units of this 
code, exceeding the MUE. The MUE for CPT code 95999 is 1. The MAI value for this code is 3. You billed 3 
units of this code, exceeding the MUE. You did not provide all the required evidence showing that the excess 
units were actually provided, were correctly coded, and were medically necessary. Based on this information, 
we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of procedure code 95861 and 95999 have not been met. Therefore, 
we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure codes 95861 and 95999 billed for date of service 
May 11, 2022.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a complete upper denture (D5110), and a complete 
lower denture (D5120). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the dental services. You say that the enrollee was not aware of the 
frequency limitation and needs replacements. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's benefit 
for the requested item or service 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 the enrollee's benefit for the requested item or service was exhausted on date of service March 2, 2021. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a complete upper denture (D5110), and a 
complete lower denture (D5120).
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the Cxbladder test (0012M) provided on May 12, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the Cxbladder test. You say that this testing was medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says this service is not covered. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that codes 0012M and 0013M for CxBladder are non-
covered. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The service at issue is non-covered. Based on this information, we 
decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the Cxbladder test have not been met. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pay for the Cxbladder test (0012M) provided on May 12, 2022.
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 it is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the requirements for approval. 
 
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 
was admitted for a stroke. Medical problems are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs.  
 
The enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational 
therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While the medical record supports a need for physical 
and/or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. Medically 
necessary care can be provided in a different level of care. 
 
There is not a reasonable expectation that this 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: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health care billed for dates of service August 31, 
2022, to October 3, 2022. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for the billed services. You say that an NOA was billed and on file. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the NOA was not received timely.   
 
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 August 31, 2022. The NOA was not received by the Plan until February 9, 
2023. 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 the home health care billed for 
dates of service August 31, 2022, to October 3, 2022.
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 you would like reconsideration based on the records 
submitted.  The Plan denied your request. The Plan says continuation of SNF services 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 you do not have daily skilled nursing needs that require the specialized skill, 
knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional nurse. You do not have daily skilled therapy needs that 
require the specialized skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional therapist. You do not require 
daily skilled nursing and/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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the home mechanical ventilator (E0466). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the home mechanical ventilator. You say that the item is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the item is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that ventilators may be covered when they are medically 
necessary for patients who have neuromuscular disease, thoracic restrictive diseases, and chronic respiratory 
failure due to COPD.  
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 home mechanical ventilator. Our 
reviewer says that the item is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee could be 
treated with a BiPAP machine with average volume assured pressure support (AVAPS) capability and failure 
of such a device has not been documented. 
 
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 home mechanical ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pre-approve the home mechanical ventilator (E0466).
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an implantable loop recorder (33285). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve an implantable loop recorder. You say that this is medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says there is no documentation of history of syncope and/or cryptogenic 
stroke. 
 
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 implantable loop recorder. 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 documentation provided to suggest a history of unexplained 
syncope, cryptogenic stroke or any other apparent indication for an implantable cardiac monitor. 
 
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 implantable loop recorder have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve an implantable loop recorder (33285).
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that the services are medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says you do not require any nursing services which would be considered skilled 
services by Medicare.  
 
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 you do not have daily skilled nursing needs that require the specialized skill, 
knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional nurse. You do not have daily skilled therapy needs that 
require the specialized skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional therapist. You do not require 
daily skilled nursing 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 SNF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says at the time of the request, the member's status is stable and improving. The 
member is receiving medically necessary acute and/or critical care. The member does not have clinical 
conditions that cannot be appropriately treated in the current hospital, and there are no issues for which 
LTACH may offer a therapeutic advantage. 
 
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 transfer to the LTACH is not medically necessary as it would not be clinically advantageous. Completion of treatment at the current facility is recommended.  
 
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 LTACH services.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve extracapsular cataract removal with insertion of 
intraocular lens prosthesis (66991 x2). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve extracapsular cataract removal with insertion of intraocular lens prosthesis. 
You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this is not medically 
necessary because the records show the enrollee is not currently on any eye drops to lower the pressure in the 
eyes. 
 
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 extracapsular cataract removal with 
insertion of intraocular lens prosthesis. Our reviewer says that the enrollee does not meet coverage criteria. Our 
physician reviewer found the documentation provided indicates that the enrollee is not currently using any 
ocular hypotensive/glaucoma medications. 
 We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of extracapsular cataract removal with insertion of intraocular lens prosthesis have 
not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve extracapsular cataract removal 
with insertion of intraocular lens prosthesis (66991 x2).
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 it is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the requirements for approval. 
 
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 
was admitted for pain and leg weakness after a fall. Medical problems are stable. There are no complex nursing 
or rehabilitation needs.  
 
The enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational 
therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While the medical record supports a need for physical 
and/or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. Medically 
necessary care can be provided in a different level of care. 
 
There is not a reasonable expectation that this 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: Outpatient Therapies
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the physical therapy (PT) services provided on January 30, 
2023. 
 
 
 You asked the Plan to pay for the PT therapy services. You say that the services were medically necessary and 
ask that the claim be reprocessed for payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there is no record 
that the enrollee has been tested for vitamin deficiencies or evaluated to have a diagnosis requiring 
vasopneumatic devices or electrical stimulation. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for medically necessary outpatient 
therapy. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pay for the PT therapy services. Our reviewer says 
that skilled services were not necessary to restore or maintain function or to prevent deterioration of the 
enrollee's condition. Our physician reviewer found there is no evidence of edema or lymphedema that require 
vasopneumatic therapy. The documentation does not reveal objective evidence on a detailed neuromuscular, 
musculoskeletal exam that indicates these services are medically necessary. There is no objective evidence of 
electrodiagnostic testing indicating a peripheral neuropathy. The enrollee has a history of lumbar degenerative 
disc disease, and it is unclear whether some of the numbness in the feet is radicular in origin. The therapy 
requested does not require the skills of a professional therapist. 
 
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 PT therapy services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pay for the physical therapy (PT) services provided on January 30, 2023.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for a SNF visit provided from January 1, 2023, 
to January 28, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for a SNF visit. You say that you thought the additional days were 
covered by the Plan because they were approved. 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 $0 
copayment for days 1 to 20 and a $196 copayment per day for days 21 to 100 for SNF care.  
 
 
  You have been asked to pay $3,332 for a SNF visit ($196 per day x 17 days = $3,332). This item/service falls 
within the SNF care 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 SNF visit provided 
from January 1, 2023, to January 28, 2023.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee is limited by their pain and have a 
decrease in their activity tolerance. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the records do not show that 
the enrollee's rehabilitation needs are complex.  
 
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. While the medical 
record supports a need for physical or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive 
rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different level of care. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: 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 it is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the requirements for approval. 
 
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 
was admitted for weakness, confusion and a urinary tract infection. Medical problems are stable. There are no 
complex nursing or rehabilitation needs.  
 
The enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational 
therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While the medical record supports a need for physical 
and/or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. Medically 
necessary care can be provided in a different level of care. 
 
There is not a reasonable expectation that this 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.