Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an electronic connection (E2311), expandable controller 
harness (E2313), and expandable controller (E2377). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve  an electronic connection, expandable controller harness, and expandable 
controller. You say that Medicare has reviewed, approved, and deemed this medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says although there are three requested power options (tilt, recline and elevating 
leg rests), there is not a medical need to control these power options through the joystick. 
 
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 electronic connection, expandable 
controller harness, and expandable controller. Our reviewer says that the requested items/services are not 
considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has 
impaired lower extremity strength but intact fine motor skills. Our reviewer also found that the enrollee has 
adequate strength to manage standard power drives. 
 
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 electronic connection, expandable controller harness, and expandable 
controller have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an electronic 
connection (E2311), expandable controller harness (E2313), and expandable controller (E2377).
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for validity testing billed with code 83789 for date(s) of service 
August 1, 2023.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for code 83789. You say that this service is medically necessary and should be paid. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says code 83789 is not separately payable. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers performing validity testing on urine 
specimens utilized for drug testing should not separately bill the validity testing. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of code 83789 have not been met. Specifically, we find that the testing described by code 83789 is not 
separately payable. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for validity testing billed with 
code 83789 for date(s) of service August 1, 2023.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a CardioMEMS device (33289). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a CardioMEMS device. You say that this procedure will address the 
enrollee's symptoms of heart failure by monitoring the pulmonary artery pressure. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the clinical value and effectiveness of the CardioMEMs device has not been 
demonstrated in the peer-reviewed literature. 
 
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 a CardioMEMS device. Our reviewer 
says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the CardioMEMS device was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 
in 2014 and consists of a sensor device placed in the pulmonary artery to allow measurement of pulmonary 
artery pressure in the management of enrollees with congestive heart failure. The clinical study on which FDA 
approval was based showed improved clinical outcomes and decreased hospitalizations in enrollees in whom 
the CardioMEMS system was implanted, reflecting an enrollee population with preserved ejection fraction and 
was somewhat limited in scope. Subsequent follow-up studies remain encouraging and suggest an 
improvement in heart failure symptoms with the use of the device. In addition, published expert opinion in the 
cardiology literature is supportive of the clinical usefulness of CardioMEMS. Nonetheless, there remains a 
dearth of randomized, blinded clinical studies examining long-term clinical outcomes establishing the value of 
CardioMEMS in enrollee management. As a result, at this time the CardioMEMS system would not be 
considered medically appropriate and necessary in this enrollee's clinical management. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of a CardioMEMS device have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve a CardioMEMS device (33289).
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 need more therapy to get stronger and return 
home. You also say you have a lot of weakness and need to be in a facility with doctors and nurses. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says your needs can be met in a skilled nursing facility.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of your nursing, medical, and rehabilitation needs does not require an 
acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. Your medical problems 
are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. You do not require treatment by multiple 
therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy 
program. While the medical record supports a need for physical therapy and/or occupational therapy, there is 
no documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. There is not a reasonable expectation that you will be 
able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF. 
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 you had your toe amputated and need rehabilitation. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says your condition does not meet all the requirements for inpatient 
rehabilitation admission. The Plan also 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 at the current functional level, you do not need intensive therapies consisting of at 
least 3 hours of therapy per day at least 5 days per week with multidisciplinary approach in an IRF. You need 
physical therapy and occupational therapy. The documentation does not support necessity for admission to an 
IRF. The complexity of your medical, rehabilitation, and nursing needs (combined complexity) does not 
require acute hospital inpatient rehab stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitative care. 
Your rehabilitation needs can be safely provided in a low intensity alternate 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 99212-25 rendered on February 3, 2020. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. You say that this should be paid for. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says the records do not support the services billed. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate CPT code. 
 In this case, the CPT Code Manual definition of code 99312 is "Office or other outpatient visit for the 
evaluation and management of an established patient, which requires at least 2 of these 3 key components: A 
problem focused history; A problem focused examination; Straightforward medical decision making. 
Counseling and/or coordination of care with other physicians, other qualified health care professionals, or 
agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. 
Usually, the presenting problem(s) are self limited or minor. Typically, 10 minutes are spent face-to-face with 
the patient and/or family." 
 
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 record does not support CPT 
99212 as being a separately identifiable procedure from CPT 97597. The record shows that wound care was 
performed, and there was not a separately identifiable level of evaluation and management. 
 
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 99212-25 rendered on February 3, 2020.
Appeal type: ER
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for the emergency care (99285) provided on March 19, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the billed code is 
not supported. 
 
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 99285 is "Emergency department visit for the evaluation and management of a patient, which requires a 
medically appropriate history and/or examination and high level of medical decision making". 
 
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 use of code 99285 is 
supported by the records provided. Our reviewer found that the documentation supports a medically 
appropriate history and physical, as well as a high level of medical decision-making. 
 
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 
the emergency care (99285) provided on March 19, 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 pay for procedure code 99212-25 rendered on February 7, 2020. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. You say that this should be paid for. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says the records do not support the services billed. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate CPT code. 
 In this case, the CPT Code Manual definition of code 99212 is "Office or other outpatient visit for the 
evaluation and management of an established patient, which requires at least 2 of these 3 key components: A 
problem focused history; A problem focused examination; Straightforward medical decision making. 
Counseling and/or coordination of care with other physicians, other qualified health care professionals, or 
agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. 
Usually, the presenting problem(s) are self limited or minor. Typically, 10 minutes are spent face-to-face with 
the patient and/or family." 
 
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 record does not support CPT 
99212 as being a separately identifiable procedure from CPT 97597. The record shows that wound care was 
performed, and there was not a separately identifiable level of evaluation and management. 
 
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 99212-25 rendered on February 7, 2020.
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.  
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee is receiving the appropriate inpatient care and is 
currently unstable for 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 there is no documentation provided indicating medical necessity for admission to a 
LTACH. The enrollee is receiving appropriate care at the present acute care facility. At the time of the request 
for LTACH services, the enrollee is not medically stable. The enrollee continues with a low-grade fever with 
leukocytosis and is on two antimicrobials. The review has determined that the enrollee does not require 
services at the LTACH that are not available at the acute care hospital where they are currently receiving 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 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: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for 26 units of procedure code 88341 rendered on May 3, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. You say that this should be paid for. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says there was no specific rationale for why the additional units needed to be 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 88341 is "Immunohistochemistry or 
immunocytochemistry, per specimen; each additional single antibody stain procedure (List separately in 
addition to code for primary procedure)." 
 
We asked our coder to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to determine if the 
Plan was correct in denying the request to pay for the services. Our reviewer says that the services at issue in 
this case were not supported by the medical records. Our reviewer found that based on the list in the records, 13 
specimens were tested. As such, billing for 26 units is not appropriate or justified. 
 
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 26 units of procedure code 88341 rendered on 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 the enrollee has rehabilitation needs to improve 
strength, endurance, activities of daily living and mobility as well as medical needs that necessitate the daily 
medical oversight provided on your unit. You say the enrollee is motivated to improve and will tolerate the 
three hours of therapy required of acute rehabilitation. 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 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. 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: 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 an expedited appeal as the 
enrollee is cleared to discharge from the acute hospital to rehabilitation. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says the enrollee does not meet Medicare guidelines for services in an inpatient rehabilitation facility.  
 
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. 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) therapy (G0277) and 
physician attendance and supervision (99183). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve HBO therapy and physician attendance. You say that the services are 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says based on the documentation provided, coverage criteria 
has not been met. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that program reimbursement for HBO therapy will be 
limited to that which is administered in a chamber (including the one man unit) and is limited to certain 
conditions. 
 
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 HBO therapy and physician attendance. 
Our reviewer says that the services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the provided 
documentation does not show the enrollee with an LCD covered indication for HBO therapy. Hearing loss is 
not listed as an indication. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of HBO therapy and physician attendance have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) therapy (G0277) and physician 
attendance and supervision (99183).