Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for inpatient hospital services rendered from November 21, 
2022, to November 27, 2022.  
You asked the Plan to pay for the inpatient hospital services at the DRG originally billed. You say that the 
submitted medical records should be used to reconsider this claim. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 
a correction of a previously paid claim resulted in an overpayment. 
 
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 DRG 871. 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 there is insufficient clinical evidence to meet criteria for sepsis, so A41.9 is not appropriate. DRG is 392 is 
more supported than DRG 871.  
 
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 inpatient hospital services rendered from November 21, 2022, to November 27, 2022.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for the laboratory services provided on 
February 10, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for the laboratory services. You say that you have not had to pay 
for this service in the past. 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 a $5 
copayment for outpatient diagnostic tests and therapeutic services and supplies. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $5 copayment for the laboratory services. This item/service falls within the 
outpatient diagnostic tests and therapeutic services and supplies 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. However, since the allowed amount is less than the 
standard copayment, you only owe $4.29. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to waive the 
copayment for the laboratory services provided on February 10, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an office visit and related services provided on February 03, 
2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for an office visit and related services. You say that this service is supported in the 
records. 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 an office visit and 
related services provided on February 03, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Partially Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for the services described by procedure code(s) 36224, 36226, 99152 and 
76377. We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the services described by procedure code(s) 99153.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for Practitioner services provided on February 22, 2023, billed with procedure codes 
99153, 36224, 36226, 99152 and 76377. You say that the claim is billed correctly and should be paid. The Plan 
says that code 99153 is not payable in the facility setting.  
 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for the services described by procedure code(s) 36224, 36226, 99152 
and 76377.  
 
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 did not make an appeal decision for the codes listed in this 
section. The Plan is not allowed to reopen any determinations while an appeal is pending and must issue a 
determination on all appealed services within the appeal time frame. As the Plan forfeited its opportunity to 
provide a denial rationale for these services, we find that the denial of payment is not supported.  Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan has to pay for the services described by procedure code(s) 36224, 36226, 99152 and 
76377.  
 
We also decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the services described by procedure code(s) 
99153. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that the OPPS recognizes that CPT code 99153 is a PE 
only code and that PE are not payable to the physician for services provided in the facility setting.  
 
We looked at the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of the services described by procedure code(s) 99153 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pay for the services described by procedure code(s) 99153. 
 
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: 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 for the denial 
of an IRF admission. 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 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: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Pluvicto (A9607). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Pluvicto. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the accepted use of 
this drug for the enrollee's condition requires the enrollee to have tried or cannot use taxane-based 
chemotherapy. The Plan also says the enrollee does not meet these requirements 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare may pay for unlabeled uses for anti-cancer 
drugs if they are medically accepted as safe and effective or appropriate for the particular use.  
 
 
 
 
 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 Pluvicto. Our reviewer says that 
Pluvicto is not medically reasonable and necessary for the enrollee. Our physician reviewer found the requested 
use of Pluvicto (A9607) is not FDA-approved for the enrollees diagnosis. Pluvicto is FDA-approved for the 
treatment of adult patients with prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-positive metastatic castration-
resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who have been treated with androgen receptor (AR) pathway inhibition and 
taxane-based chemotherapy. It does not appear the enrollee received taxane-based therapy. Our reviewer found 
that the use is not supported by one of the major drug compendia or by clinical research that appears in a 
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) approved medical journal. Our physician reviewer also 
found that the use is not listed as not indicated, not supported or not recommended in any of the compendia 
because the enrollee does not have a history of taxane-based chemotherapy use in the past. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Pluvicto have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Pluvicto (A9607).
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a pneumatic compression device (E0652), a segmental 
pneumatic appliance for use with pneumatic compressor, trunk (E0656) and a segmental pneumatic appliance 
for use with pneumatic compressor, full leg (E0667x2). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a pneumatic compression device and appliances. You say that the requested 
items are medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there is no documentation that this 
enrollee has completed a four-week trial of daily, regular and multiple hour use of an E0650 or E0651 after 
careful, in person fitting, training, and supervision by a skilled technician as required by Medicare. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules state that a PCD coded as E0652 is covered for the treatment of 
lymphedema extending onto the chest, trunk and/or abdomen after a four-week trial of conservative therapy 
demonstrating failed response to treatment with an E0650 or E0651. At least four weeks of regular, daily, 
multiple-hour home usage of the E0650 or E0651 is required. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of the PCD have not been met. Specifically, the record does not show that the enrollee had at least 
four weeks of regular, daily, multiple-hour home usage of the E0650 or E0651 after careful, in-person fitting, 
training and supervision by a technician who is skilled in and who regularly and successfully uses the appliance 
provided.  Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a pneumatic compression device 
(E0652), a segmental pneumatic appliance for use with pneumatic compressor, trunk (E0656) and a segmental 
pneumatic appliance for use with pneumatic compressor, full leg (E0667x2).
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 admission to an IRF is necessary because the 
enrollee will need physical therapy and occupational therapy to assist with walking, standing, sitting, bathing, 
dressing, and becoming more independent. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not 
meet Medicare guidelines for services in 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 that 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 does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational 
therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While the enrollee may have a need for physical 
therapy 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 the enrollee will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the 
intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve an 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 for the denial 
of an IRF admission. 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 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 pay for infrared therapy provided by your chiropractor on February 
22, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for infrared therapy. You say that you are appealing the denial. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says this service is not covered by Medicare. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that infrared therapy is excluded from Medicare coverage. 
 The records show that the service at issue is excluded from Medicare coverage. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pay for infrared therapy provided by your chiropractor on February 22, 2023.
Appeal type: ER
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for emergency room services (93042) provided on December 12, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the emergency room services. You say that this service was medically necessary. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the billed code is 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 CPT code. 
 
We find that CPT code 93042 is not supported in the medical record. Specifically, the electrocardiogram 
reading (93042) is included in the emergency room service billed. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the emergency room services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pay for emergency room services (93042) provided on December 12, 2022.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve revascularization of arteries in left leg with a procedure 
to open the blood vessels with a balloon (angioplasty) and a procedure that places a wire mesh tube to help 
keep an artery open (stent placement) (37230). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the services. You say that the enrollee says that they need these services.  
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the records do not show symptoms of arterial disease (pain in legs 
with activity, slow to heal wounds) that the enrollee is experiencing which interfere with activities of daily 
living.  
 
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 the services. Our reviewer says that the 
requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found the record indicates that the enrollee has claudication. The record provided does not indicate the 
failure of conservative treatment, limb threat, or the presence of hemodynamically significant vascular disease. 
The record provided does not establish the medical necessity and reasonableness, as defined by Medicare rules, 
of the requested service. The elements of the coverage criteria are not satisfied. The requested service is not 
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 services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve revascularization of arteries in left leg with a procedure to open the blood vessels with a 
balloon (angioplasty) and a procedure that places a wire mesh tube to help keep an artery open (stent 
placement) (37230).
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Favorable

 
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 does not meet all of the requirements. Services 
needed may be provided safely in 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 does not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation 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 waive the copayment for an urgent care visit provided on October 
04, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for an urgent care visit. You say that you disagree with the 
copayment. 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 a $40 
copayment for urgently needed services. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $40 copayment for an urgent care visit. This item/service falls within the 
urgently needed services 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 an urgent 
care visit provided on October 04, 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 you are requesting reconsideration for the denial of 
an IRF admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you do not meet the requirements for care in 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. 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.