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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the Cxbladder test (0012M) provided on February 24, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the Cxbladder test. You say that this testing was medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says this service is not covered. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that codes 0012M and 0013M for Cxbladder are non-
covered. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The service at issue is non-covered. Based on this information, we 
decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the Cxbladder test have not been met. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pay for the Cxbladder test (0012M) provided on February 24, 2023.
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Hyalgan. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve Hyalgan. 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. 
 
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 Hyalgan. Our reviewer says that the 
services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the documentation does not outline 
contraindications or reasons these medications were not considered or that the plan's additional required drugs 
would likely be less effective and/or likely have adverse effects for the enrollee. Without the support of the 
documentation, Hyalgan is not approved as step criteria have not been 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 Hyalgan have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Hyalgan.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the urine polymerase chain reaction (PCR) panel testing 
provided on February 15, 2023, and billed with codes 87481, 87500, 87640, 87652, 87798, 87798, 87799, and 
87900. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the urine PCR panel testing. You say that this testing was medically necessary. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this testing should be billed with a single panel code. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that a panel cannot be unbundled and billed as 
individual components. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. This test was not billed with a single panel code as required. Based 
on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the urine PCR panel testing have not been 
met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the urine polymerase chain reaction (PCR) panel testing provided on February 15, 2023, and billed with codes 87481, 87500, 87640, 87652, 87798, 
87798, 87799, and 87900.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Minuteman interspinous device procedure. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Minuteman. You say that the record shows this is medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the clinical value and effectiveness of the Minuteman procedure have 
not been demonstrated. 
 
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 Minuteman. Our reviewer says that the 
requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found the Minuteman interspinous device is experimental. More research is needed to show its safety 
and efficacy. 
 We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Minuteman have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve the Minuteman interspinous device procedure.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee is stable and suitable for transfer to an 
inpatient rehabilitation hospital. 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure codes 95938 and 95940 provided on March 9, 
2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure codes 95938 and 95940. You say that you would like the Plan to 
reconsider their denial of payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the claim was not billed 
correctly. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
 
We looked at the file and the rules. The intraoperative neuromonitoring services were billed with place of 
service code 15, a mobile unit. The services are supported for the place of service where the surgery was 
provided. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the billed services have 
not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure codes 95938 and 95940 
provided on March 9, 2023.
Appeal type: Outpatient Therapies
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 97010 billed for date of service February 6, 
2023 to February 10, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 97010. You say that this should be paid for. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says procedure code 97010 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 97010 has a status indicator of B on the Physician Fee Schedule. This means that 
procedure code 97010 is not separately payable. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of procedure code 97010 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay 
for procedure code 97010 billed for date of service February 6, 2023 to February 10, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure codes 99222 and 99232 provided from February 
28, 2023, to March 1, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure codes 99222 and 99232. You say that you would like the Plan to 
reconsider their denial of payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services are not covered as 
billed. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must bill the appropriate POS code for 
services. POS code 21 indicates that the services were performed in an inpatient hospital setting. POS code 22 
indicates that the services were performed in an outpatient hospital setting. 
 
In this case, you billed the claim for these services with POS code 21. However, the documentation shows that 
the patient was in an observation status. Observation is an outpatient status, so POS code 22 should have been used on the claim instead. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure codes 99222 
and 99232 provided from February 28, 2023, to March 1, 2023.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve additional power wheelchair accessories (E2311, 
E2313, E2377, K0108). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the services. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says it is not medically necessary to control the three approved power options through the 
joystick (drive interface). 
 
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 are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer 
found that the requested electrical accessories are not medically necessary as the enrollee does have use of the 
upper extremity and can operate and control the power options using the switches that are included in the basic 
wheelchair. There is not a medical need for the upgraded electronics. 
 
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 additional power wheelchair accessories (E2311, E2313, E2377, K0108).
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve ESI. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the ESI injections. You say that this procedure is necessary because you are 
in severe pain. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request is not medically necessary. 
 
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 ESI injections. Our reviewer says 
that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found that the documentation does not indicate a 50% sustained improvement for three 
months from first set of injections. There is no documentation of a different approach, level and/or medication 
for the requested second set of injections. The review has determined that the LCD coverage criteria have not 
been 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 ESI injections have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve ESI.
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 should be admitted to an inpatient 
rehabilitation hospital for medically necessary care. 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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve insertion of a cardiac loop monitor. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the services. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says there have been no syncopal episodes. 
 
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 services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer 
found that at issue is the appropriateness and medical necessity of implanting an ILR in the clinical 
management of this patient. The patient had no history of atrial fibrillation, nor were any significant cardiac 
arrhythmias noted on electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring. A recent randomized clinical trial found that 
continuous monitoring for atrial fibrillation with an ILR (followed by treatment with oral anticoagulation if 
atrial fibrillation was detected) was not superior to usual care in reducing stroke or systemic embolism among 
patients at high risk of stroke but without a known prior history of atrial fibrillation. At this time, insertion of an ILR would not be considered medically appropriate and necessary in this enrollees 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 the services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve insertion of a cardiac loop monitor.
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 based on Medicare guidelines, 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: 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 could be harmed at a lower level of care 
without adequate medical supervision management and their best outcome for functional gains are at an IRF. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says admission to an IRF 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 does not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. There are no 
complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. The enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies, 
including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. 
While the medical record supports a need for physical 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 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 would like reconsideration. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet Medicare guidelines 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 the enrollee's nursing, medical, and rehabilitation needs does not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. There are no 
complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. The enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies, 
including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. 
While the medical record supports a need for physical 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 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 telehealth services provided on January 12, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the telehealth services. You say that the services were medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says telehealth care services or virtual care services can be provided by an 
in-network provider thus payment to an out-of-network telehealth provider is denied. 
 
The Plan contract says that the Plan covers telehealth services. The enrollee must use a network provider who 
offers the service by telehealth. 
 
We looked at the file and the Plans rules. The file shows that the Plan does not cover telehealth services  
out-of-network. Based on this information, we decided that the Plans rules for coverage of the telehealth 
services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for telehealth services 
provided on January 12, 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 you are requesting reconsideration for the denial of 
an IRF admission. 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 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.