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 you are requesting reconsideration for the denial of 
an IRF admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you do not meet the criteria for admission to an 
IRF. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not require an 
acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The documentation shows 
that you require ongoing physical and occupational therapy, but it does not show that you require an intensive 
rehabilitation regimen in an IRF 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 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 an IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you are not able to function with daily activities of 
life due to being confined to a wheelchair. You also say you have constant pain in your back. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the IRF services requested do 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 that you do not require intensive or complex rehabilitation. You are chronically 
deconditioned and do not require frequent physiatry oversight.  
 
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 an IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for laboratory services provided on February 15, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for laboratory services. 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 laboratory services 
provided on February 15, 2023.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for lab services provided on March 01, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for lab services. You say that this was a yearly dermatology exam. 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 lab services provided on 
March 01, 2023.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve use of a ventilator. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve ventilator. You say that your medical condition requires more than 3 months 
of ventilator use. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says a ventilator is not covered by Medicare for this 
purpose, but the Plan has approved 3 months of continued ventilator use while the appropriate equipment is 
arranged for you. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that ventilator products used to provide positive 
airway pressure (PAP) therapy, regardless of the underlying medical condition, shall not be covered.  
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve use 
of a ventilator.
Appeal type: ER
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the emergency room visit provided on January 02, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the emergency room visit. You say that the services were medically necessary. 
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 the emergency room 
visit provided on January 02, 2023.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for acute inpatient hospital services billed with diagnosis code 
J18.9 rendered from August 29, 2022, to September 1, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the inpatient hospital services at the DRG originally billed. You say that this 
should be paid for. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says DRG 071 is the more appropriate DRG. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report inpatient hospital services with the appropriate DRG, which is based, in part, on the 
reported principal and secondary diagnosis codes.   
 
In this case, you billed the inpatient services provided with diagnosis code J18.9. 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 inpatient hospital services at the DRG originally billed. Our 
reviewer says that the services at issue in this case were not supported by the medical records. Our physician 
reviewer found that pneumonia requires radiographic presence, which was not the case here. Thus, the 
documentation does not support this diagnosis code.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided the 
medical records do not substantiate the DRG as billed. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay 
for acute inpatient hospital services billed with diagnosis code J18.9 rendered from August 29, 2022, to 
September 1, 2022.
Appeal type: Testing
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for testing services provided on December 16, 2022, billed with 
procedure code 76705. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the testing service provided. You say that the claim is billed correctly and should 
be paid. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this claim was billed with an invalid diagnosis.  
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that manifestation diagnosis codes are never 
permitted to be used as first listed or principal diagnosis codes. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of the testing service provided have not been met. This claim was billed with principal diagnosis code 
K74.00 which is a manifestation code. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for testing 
services provided on December 16, 2022, billed with procedure code 76705.
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 intensive rehab due to current 
medical conditions. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the IRF services you are requesting do 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 enrollee's nursing, medical, and rehabilitation needs does not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. 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. 
 
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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a continuous passive motion (CPM) exercise device to 
be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve CPM device. You say that you are appealing this denial. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says this provider is out-of-network with the Plan and the needed equipment can be 
obtained within the Plan network. 
 
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 pre-approve care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving 
emergencies, out of area urgent care and care that cannot be provided by network providers. 
 
The requested provider in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan has network providers 
available who can provide the items/services at issue in this appeal. We found no exception that would require 
the Plan to pre-approve these items/services. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve 
a continuous passive motion (CPM) exercise device to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that without an IRF admission the enrollee is at risk for 
contractures. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request 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 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 IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 44310-58-59-51 rendered on December 4, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. You say that you submitted medical records for review. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the documents received do not indicate that this procedure was 
distinct/independent from other services performed. 
 
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 44310 is "Ileostomy or jejunostomy, non-tube." 
 
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 procedure report does not 
include documentation to support a distinct procedural service for CPT 44310. Modifier 59 should be used 
when coding for a different session, different procedure or surgery, different site or organ system, separate 
incision/excision, separate lesion (noncontiguous lesions in different anatomic regions of the same organ), or 
separate injury.  In this case, services were performed in same anatomical area, and therefore, CPT 44310 and 
modifier 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 44310-58-59-51 rendered on December 4, 2022.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for procedure code 22852 rendered on June 21, 2022. 
 
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 that procedure code 22852 is considered include to CPT 22840. 
 
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 22852 is "Removal of posterior segmental instrumentation." 
 
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 supported by the medical records. Our reviewer found that the procedure detail cites the 
hardware was removed bilaterally at L3, L4, L5, and S1. The fusion was explored at these levels and was solid. 
The subsequent fusion was then carried out at L2-3. Therefore, the documentation does support CPT 22852 as 
a separate and distinct procedure from CPT 22840. 
 
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 been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for 
procedure code 22852 rendered on June 21, 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: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the self-administered drugs you received on March 11, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the drugs. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the medication is not 
covered as a medical benefit under the Plan. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare Part B generally does not pay for self-
administered drugs. The self-administered drugs requested here are not among the types which are covered by Medicare Part B. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the self-administered drugs you 
received on March 11, 2023.
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve use of Leqvio. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve Leqvio. You say that you are appealing with supporting records. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the Plan requires a trial of Praluent before it will approve Leqvio. 
 
Medicare covers Part B medications when they are reasonable and necessary but allows health plans to 
implement step therapy criteria. The Plan's contract indicates that it has implemented such criteria for certain 
Part B medications. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve Leqvio. Our reviewer says that the 
enrollee does not meet criteria for a step therapy exception for Leqvio. Our physician reviewer found the 
enrollee has not tried and failed the Plan's preferred drug of Praluent. The record does not show that this drug 
would likely be less effective and/or have adverse effects for the enrollee. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Leqvio have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pre-approve use of Leqvio.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Freestyle Libre 14-day continuous glucose monitor 
(CGM) reader device. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a Freestyle Libre CGM reader device. You say that the enrollee is on insulin 
and needs the requested device The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet criteria 
for approval of the CGM device 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that therapeutic CGMs are considered medically 
reasonable and necessary when prescribed in accordance with their FDA indications for enrollees with diabetes 
who are insulin treated or who have a history of problematic hypoglycemia and have had an in-person visit 
with their treating physician to evaluate their diabetes control and determine whether the criteria for coverage 
have been met. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The documentation indicates that the enrollee does not use insulin or 
have a history of problematic hypoglycemia Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of a Freestyle Libre CGM reader device have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a Freestyle Libre 14-day continuous glucose monitor (CGM) reader device.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the laboratory services provided on March 2, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the laboratory services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this claim 
was not filed timely. 
 
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 the laboratory services was not filed until February 2, 2023. This means that 
more than one calendar year from the date of service had passed before a claim was filed. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the laboratory services provided on March 2, 2021.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve ultrasound guided radiation therapy. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve ultrasound guided radiation therapy. You say that it is medically necessary. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested service is not covered by Medicare or the health 
Plan. 
 
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 ultrasound guided radiation therapy. 
Our reviewer says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in 
this case.  
 
 Our physician reviewer found the billing for daily image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) which would not be 
furnished in accordance with accepted standards of medical practice. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of ultrasound guided radiation therapy have not been met. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan does not have to pre-approve ultrasound guided radiation therapy.