Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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 21, 
2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 99100. You say that you disagree with the Plan's denial. 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 21, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code S9328 billed for date of service June 18, 
2023 to July 15, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code S9328. You say that this service was medically necessary. 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 June 18, 2023 to July 15, 2023.
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 LTACH services. You say that the enrollee has multiple complex medical 
issues that cannot be managed at a lower level of care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee 
is receiving appropriate inpatient care and does not require transfer to an LTACH. 
 
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 LTACH services. Our reviewer says 
that the requested LTACH care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee is receiving appropriate care in the current acute care setting as provided 
by the Plan. The medical documentation does not support that LTACH services are medically appropriate 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 LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve LTACH services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the services are medically necessary due 
to the enrollee's complicated medical conditions. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee is 
receiving appropriate inpatient acute care and does not require transfer to a LTACH. 
 
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 the enrollee is presently receiving appropriate services in the acute care setting. 
Records do not support the need to transfer from one acute hospital to another. Continued care in the short-term 
acute hospital is appropriate until the enrollee is stable to transfer to a lower level of care such as an inpatient 
rehabilitation facility, a sub-acute rehabilitation facility or 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 the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Dexcom G7 receiver.  
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the continuous glucose monitor (CGM). You say that the medical records 
provided support the need for the requested CGM. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says Medicare 
Guidance say a CGM is covered under Medicare only if a member with diabetes is on insulin or has 
documentation of very low blood sugars that has occurred several times. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that therapeutic CGMs may be considered reasonable and 
necessary for enrollees with diabetes who meet the criteria referenced 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 the CGM. Our physician reviewer 
found coverage criteria for a CGM requires insulin use or low blood glucose sugar (BGS); however, this 
enrollee is not having low BGS and is not using insulin. Therefore, although the CGM may help the enrollee, 
coverage criteria for CGM 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 the CGM have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Dexcom G7 receiver.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for genetic testing (81226) provided on May 3, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for genetic testing. You say that the services at issue were a medical necessity for 
the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the services at issue require prior authorization. 
 
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. Specifically, the Plan indicates that you are an out-of-network provider. The 
Plan has not provided information about the network status of the referring provider indicated on the claim. It is 
the Plan's responsibility to support its denial with evidence. In this case, the Plan's denial is not sufficiently 
supported, so we must find in your favor. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for genetic testing 
(81226) provided on May 3, 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: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure codes 84436 and 84479 billed for date of service 
May 3, 2023.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure codes 84436 and 84479. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 
payment for codes 84436 and 84479 is bundled into payment for code 84439. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate CPT code. In this case, we have confirmed that codes 84436 and 84479 are column two codes to column one code 84439 with a modifier indicator of 0. The column 
two code is therefore not payable. 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 codes 84436 and 84479 billed for date 
of service May 3, 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 admission is medically necessary for the enrollee. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's records do not indicate the need to be seen by a 
rehabilitation physician three times weekly for evaluation of functional and medical goals and progress or that 
you need an intensive care team. The Plan says services may be provided at a lower level of care.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section.  
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not 
require an acute rehabilitation 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, at an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. There is not a reasonable expectation that this 
individual will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy program 
provided in an inpatient rehabilitation facility. The enrollee continues to have a need for skilled therapy with 
ongoing safety concerns and a potential for functional improvement; however, the documentation does not 
support that the enrollee would meet criteria for admission to an acute inpatient rehabilitation facility. There is 
no indication that the enrollee would require skilled rehabilitation in an IRF, participating in rehabilitation 
services 15 hours a week, under the supervision of a physician with at least 3 visits weekly to regain or 
maintain their functional status. 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: Testing
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for codes 93005, 93005-76, and 93041-59 billed for dates of 
service June 16, 2023, to June 17, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for codes 93005, 93005-76, and 93041-59. You say that these are payable codes. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says these codes are not separately payable. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that STV-packaged services are services for which separate 
payment is made only if there is no service with status indicator S, T, or V reported on the same claim. If a 
claim includes a service that is assigned status indicator S, T, or V reported on the same claim as the STV- 
packaged service, the payment for the STV-packaged service is packaged into the payment for the service(s) 
with status indicator S, T, V and no separate payment is made for the STV-packaged service. STV-packaged services are assigned status indicator Q1. In this case, the codes in dispute have a status indicator of QI, 
meaning that they are STV-packaged services.  These disputed codes were billed on the same claim with a code 
that has a status indicator of S, T, or V.  This means that the codes in dispute in this appeal are not separately 
payable. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of codes 93005, 93005-76, and 93041-59 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pay for codes 93005, 93005-76, and 93041-59 billed for dates of service June 16, 2023, to June 17, 
2023.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the lab panel provided on February 6, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the panel. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the panel should only be 
billed with one code. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that if a laboratory procedure produces multiple 
reportable test results, only a single HCPCS/CPT code shall be reported for the procedure. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The lab panel in this case was billed with multiple codes and not one 
code as required by Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of 
the panel have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the lab panel 
provided on February 6, 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 IRF services. 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 enrollees nursing, medical, and rehabilitation needs are complex. However, they 
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 record supports a need for skilled 
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 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve office visits to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) 
provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve office visits. You say that the requested services are a medical necessity for 
the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says rules for OON coverage have not been met. 
 
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 
office visits 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 acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you were independent and active before coming to 
the hospital and you want to return to being independent. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says based on 
Medicare guidelines, 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 the complexity of your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not require an 
acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitative care. You are medically stable 
and do not need a physician's supervision three times a week in an IRF. You need physical and occupational 
therapy, but you do not need intensive therapies consisting of at least three hours of therapy per day at least five 
days per week with a multidisciplinary approach in an IRF. Your rehabilitation needs can be safely provided in 
an alternate and low intensity setting such as in 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 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 can benefit from inpatient rehab. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says an IRF admission 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 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 admission is medically necessary for the enrollee. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's condition does not meet all of the requirements for 
inpatient rehabilitation admission. The Plan says services may be provided at a lower level of care.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not 
require an acute rehabilitation 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, at an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. The enrollee continues to have a need for skilled 
therapy with ongoing safety concerns and a potential for functional improvement; however, the documentation 
does not support that the enrollee would meet criteria for admission to an acute inpatient rehabilitation facility. 
There is no indication that the enrollee would require skilled rehabilitation in an IRF, participating in rehab 
services 15 hours a week, under the supervision of a physician with at least 3 visits weekly to regain or 
maintain their functional status. 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.