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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) testing (84443) 
provided July 10, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the laboratory service. You say that this was for a TSH thyroid test performed for 
diagnostic reasons requested by your doctor.  The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the diagnosis billed 
for this procedure code is not covered by Medicare.  
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules explicitly say that screening tests, with the exception of the few 
tests listed in the Medicare rules section, are not covered. 
 
The test at issue in this appeal, the laboratory service, was requested solely for screening purposes. Medicare 
does not cover this test solely for screening purposes. The claim was also billed with a GY modifier, which 
means that the provider is aware that this test is not covered by Medicare. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pay for the thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) testing (84443) provided July 10, 2023.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the laboratory panel (87653, 87798 and 87640) billed for 
date of service April 19, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the laboratory panel. You say that this testing was necessary and is supported in 
the medical record. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this panel was not billed in accordance with 
Medicare rules. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that for tests for infectious agents, a single laboratory 
procedure shall be reported as one unit of service whether it generates one or multiple results. Multiple codes 
should only be used when multiple procedures, multiple methodologies, or multiple test kits are medically necessary and used to perform the test.  
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The documentation supports that this panel used one testing 
technique. There is no evidence that multiple procedures, multiple methodologies, or multiple kits were used in 
this case. As such, a single code with one unit of service should be used. Based on this information, we decided 
that Medicare rules for coverage of the testing panel have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pay for the laboratory panel (87653, 87798 and 87640) billed for date of service April 19, 
2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve medial branch blocks. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the medial branch blocks. You say that you are appealing with supporting 
records. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the criteria for coverage have not been met. 
 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 medial branch blocks. 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 multiple other probable pain generators and therefore does not meet 
the LCDs criteria for facet injections. 
 
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 medial branch blocks have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve medial branch blocks.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the Gastrointestinal Pathogen Panel provided on May 10, 
2023, and billed with codes G0452, 87500, 87641, 87798, and 87506. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the Gastrointestinal Pathogen Panel. 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 for tests for infectious agents, a single laboratory 
procedure shall be reported as one unit of service whether it generates one or multiple results. Multiple codes 
should only be used when multiple procedures, multiple methodologies, or multiple test kits are medically 
necessary and used to perform the test.   
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The documentation supports that this panel used the nucleic acid 
probe technique. There is no evidence that multiple procedures, multiple methodologies, or multiple kits were 
used in this case. As such, a single code with one unit of service should be used. Based on this information, we 
decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the testing panel have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pay for the Gastrointestinal Pathogen Panel provided on May 10, 2023, and billed with 
codes G0452, 87500, 87641, 87798, and 87506.
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 the LTACH services. You say that the medical records provided support the 
need for care in an LTACH. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the coverage criteria has not been 
met. 
 
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 that you do not require services at the LTACH that are not available at the acute care 
hospital where you are currently receiving care. The requested LTACH services are not medically necessary,  
 reasonable, and appropriate for your diagnosis and condition and able to be furnished safely and effectively 
only on an inpatient basis. 
 
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 LTACH services.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health services provided from February 11, 2023 to 
February 27, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the home health services as billed. You say that this service was medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the claim has not been billed with the correct admission 
date. 
 The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that for home health services that are continuing from 2021, a 
NOA must be submitted for the first period of care in 2022, using the first date of the period as the admission 
date. Subsequent claims must report this new date as the admission date in order for the claim to be matched to 
the correct NOA.  
 
We reviewed the file and the Medicare rules. We find that the admission date reported on the claim at issue 
does not match the date for the NOA which is filed for the first date in 2022 as required. Based on this 
information, we find that the Medicare rules for payment of the claim at issue have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health services provided from February 11, 2023 to 
February 27, 2023.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the lab panel provided on April 30, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the panel. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the panel should be billed 
with the most comprehensive code available. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that for tests for infectious agents, a single laboratory 
procedure shall be reported as one unit of service whether it generates one or multiple results. Multiple codes 
should only be used when multiple procedures, multiple methodologies, or multiple test kits are medically 
necessary and used to perform the test.  
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The documentation supports that this panel used the nucleic acid probe technique. There is no evidence that multiple procedures, multiple methodologies, or multiple kits were 
used in this case. As such, a single code with one unit of service should be used. Based on this information, we 
decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the testing panel have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pay for the lab panel provided on April 30, 2023.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the DecisionDx-SCC test (0315U) provided on May 15, 
2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the DecisionDx-SCC test. You say that this testing is medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says this testing is not covered. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that molecular diagnostic laboratory tests are subject 
to the MolDX application, assessment, and approval process. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. This test is listed in the DEX database as not covered. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the DecisionDx-SCC test have not been met. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the DecisionDx-SCC test (0315U) provided on 
May 15, 2023.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the coinsurance for an in-network life vest provided on 
October 13, 2022, to December 13, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the coinsurance for an in-network life vest. You say that this was given to you 
while you were inpatient, you havent used it since because it gives you a rash. You should not have to pay 
this. 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 20% 
coinsurance for durable medical equipment (DME) and related supplies. 
 
You have been asked to pay 20% coinsurance for an in-network life vest. This item/service falls within the 
durable medical equipment (DME) and related 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. The total you owe per date of services is $616.19 ($3,080.95 
x 20% = $616.19). The total you owe is $1,848.57 ($616.19 coinsurance x 3 dates of service = $1,848.57). 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to waive the coinsurance for an in-network life vest provided 
on October 13, 2022, to December 13, 2022.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to reimburse you for the walk-in tub purchased May 1, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to reimburse you for the walk-in tub. You say that you were told that at least some of this 
might be covered as you have a hard time getting in and out of the shower safely. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says this item is not covered. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that for equipment to be covered, it must primarily serve a 
medical purpose.   
 
The item at issue in this appeal does not serve a purpose that is primarily medical in nature. This item is 
available to the general public and would be helpful even to those who are not sick or injured. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to reimburse you for the walk-in tub purchased May 1, 2023.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve genicular nerve radiofrequency ablation (64624). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve genicular nerve radiofrequency ablation. You say that this should be 
covered. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this is experimental. 
 
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 genicular nerve radiofrequency 
ablation. Our reviewer says that the requested genicular nerve radiofrequency ablation is not considered 
medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found this is considered an 
experimental procedure and is the subject of ongoing clinical trials. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of genicular nerve radiofrequency ablation have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve genicular nerve radiofrequency ablation (64624).
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 these services are medically necessary for the 
enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says these services are 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. Medical 
problems are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. The enrollee does not require 
treatment by multiple therapies. 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. 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: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the laboratory services provided on August 02, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the laboratory services. You say that these services are not covered when 
provided OON. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that unauthorized, out-of-network care is not 
covered. 
 
Medicare rules say that plans can require enrollees to get care from network providers. The contract with the 
Plan says that the Plan has to pay for care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving emergencies, 
out of area urgent care and pre-approved care. 
 
The provider of the item(s)/service(s) at issue in this appeal is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan did not pre-approve the item(s)/service(s) at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay 
for the item(s)/service(s). Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the laboratory services 
provided on August 02, 2023.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the DecisionDx-SCC test (0315U) provided on August 15, 
2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the DecisionDx-SCC test. You say that this testing is medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says this testing is not covered. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that molecular diagnostic laboratory tests are subject 
to the MolDX application, assessment, and approval process. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. This test is listed in the DEX database as not covered. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the DecisionDx-SCC test have not been met. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the DecisionDx-SCC test (0315U) provided on 
August 15, 2023.
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 you are requesting reconsideration for 
the denial of an LTACH admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the 
guidelines for care in 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 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 medically unstable for transfer due to abnormal chest x-ray 
findings. The enrollee's care needs can be safely managed in the current acute setting until they are deemed 
medically stable for transfer to a lower level setting. The enrollee does not require services at the LTACH that 
are not available at the acute care hospital where they are currently receiving care. There are no services 
available at the LTACH that the enrollee requires that are not available at the health care setting being offered 
by the Plan. The requested LTACH services are not medically necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the 
diagnosis and condition of the enrollee and able to be furnished safely and effectively only on an inpatient 
basis. 
 
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: 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 feel that you need IRF services as you do not 
have much strength. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you do 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 complexity of your nursing, medical, and rehabilitation needs does not require an 
acute hospital inpatient stay, with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. 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 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 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 are asking for reconsideration of admission for 
the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says these services the enrollee needs can be provided 
safely in other settings.  
 
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. Medical 
problems are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. The enrollee does not require 
treatment by multiple therapies. 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. 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.