Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Tysabri. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve Tysabri. You say that the enrollee will receive Tysabri every 28 days for 
one year. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the step therapy requirements have 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 Tysabri. Our reviewer says that Tysabri 
is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee has multiple sclerosis, and the 
requested medication is a new start. However, there is no indication that the enrollee has tried and failed the 
Plan's preferred step one alternative. Also, there is no indication that the enrollee has a contraindication to or 
would have an adverse effect from the Plan's preferred step one alternative. Therefore, the elements of the 
coverage criteria are not satisfied, and the requested service cannot be 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 Tysabri have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pre-approve Tysabri.
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 LTACH admission is medically 
necessary for the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the criteria 
for the LTACH admission. 
 
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 appears to be improving with current treatment and should only require 
short-term additional acute care hospital services that can safely be provided at the current facility until more 
stable and appropriate for transfer to a lower level of care. The enrollee does not require services at the LTACH that are not already available at the current facility.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services.
Appeal type: 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 it is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says you do not meet the requirements for approval. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not require an 
acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. You have a history of 
rheumatoid arthritis and is living at home with weakness and functional decline. 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 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 you 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 genetic testing provided on March 16, 2023, billed with 
codes 81216, 81241, 81279, 81298, 81307, 81311, 81317, 81321, 81334 and 81339. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the genetic testing billed. You say that this testing was necessary and is 
supported in the medical record. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says panel testing should be billed 
using one CPT code on the claim. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that if one laboratory procedure evaluates multiple genes 
using a next generation sequencing (NGS) procedure, the laboratory shall report only one unit of service of one 
genomic sequencing procedure, molecular multianalyte assay, multianalyte assay with algorithmic analysis, or 
proprietary laboratory analysis code. We looked at the file and Medicare rules. This was an NGS panel that was not billed with a single panel code 
as required. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the genetic testing billed 
have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the genetic testing provided on 
March 16, 2023, billed with codes 81216, 81241, 81279, 81298, 81307, 81311, 81317, 81321, 81334 and 
81339.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Capecitabine. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Capecitabine. You say that you disagree with the Plan's denial. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the requested drug is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for a drug or biological only if it is safe 
and effective and otherwise reasonable and necessary.  
 
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 Capecitabine. Our reviewer says that 
the documentation does not support that the requested drug is medically reasonable or necessary. Our physician 
reviewer found the enrollee has a diagnosis of metastatic HR+ HER2- breast cancer. The Food and Drug 
Administration has not stated that the requested drug is indicated for the enrollee's condition. The Medicare 
approved cancer drug compendia do not contain a supportive citation for the use of the requested drug in the 
enrollee's clinical situation. Therefore, the enrollee does not meet criteria for the requested drug. 
 
 We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Capecitabine have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve Capecitabine.
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 it is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the enrollee does 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 medical records provided the enrollee would be expected to participate in and 
benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in an inpatient rehabilitation facility 
however the medical records do not support a complexity of needs to require an acute inpatient rehabilitation 
facility over a skilled nursing facility. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that it is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the enrollee does 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 enrollees nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The enrollee 
was admitted for respiratory failure, pneumonia and COPD. Medical problems are stable. 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 
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 this 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: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for the acute inpatient hospital care provided from December 3, 2022, 
through December 15, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for these services. You say that you are requesting a reconsideration of the Plan's 
denial for payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the acute inpatient hospital care provided 
was not medically necessary.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that inpatient hospital care is covered when the doctor 
expects the patient to need hospital care that crosses at least two midnights. In rare and unusual cases, 
consideration may be given to inpatient hospital care when the hospital stay does not cross two midnights or 
more. 
 
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 these services. Our reviewer says that the 
documentation supports that the criteria for inpatient payment are met in this case. Our physician reviewer 
found that the enrollee was admitted to the hospital for Ketosis without acidosis, hyperglycemia, 
hypomagnesemia, hyperammonemia, and an altered mental status. She required intravenous fluid resuscitation, 
Insulin administration, and a short course of antibiotics. Her condition stabilized and improved with medical 
treatment and she was discharged back to the nursing facility when considered medically stable on  
December 15, 2022. The review has determined that the record showed that at the time of the inpatient 
admission the admitting physician reasonably expected that the enrollee's necessary hospital care (including 
earlier emergency department (ED) and/or observation care) would span two midnights. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of these services have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for 
the acute inpatient hospital care provided from December 3, 2022, through December 15, 2022.  
 
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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the hand-finger orthosis (HFO) (L3924), purchased on 
March 13, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the HFO. You say that the item should be covered. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says this item was obtained through a provider that is not enrolled in Medicare. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare payment cannot be made to a provider that is 
not enrolled in the Medicare program. 
 
Review of the file and Medicare records indicates that the provider at issue is not enrolled in the Medicare 
program. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the hand-finger orthosis (HFO) (L3924), 
purchased on March 13, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for practitioner services provided on April 30, 2023, billed with 
procedure code 27786-54-RT. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the practitioner services provided. You say that the claim is billed correctly and 
should be paid. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says documentation does not support the billed code. 
 
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 27786-54-RT is closed treatment of distal fibular fracture 
(lateral malleolus); without manipulation. 
 
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 practitioner services provided. Our reviewer says that documentation does not support the billed code. Our reviewer found that the medical records provided does not 
include sufficient documentation to validate that a closed treatment of distal fibular fracture (lateral malleolus); 
without manipulation was performed on April 30, 2023, therefore this procedure cannot be verified.  
 
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 practitioner services provided have not been met. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pay for practitioner services provided on April 30, 2023, billed with procedure code 
27786-54-RT.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for Outpatient Intravenous Insulin Therapy (OIVIT) services 
provided on June 1, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for OIVIT services. You say that the claim is billed correctly and should be paid. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the codes are not appropriate for the service billed. 
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that OIVIT is not reasonable and necessary for any 
indication. Services comprising an Outpatient Intravenous Insulin Therapy regimen are nationally non-covered 
under Medicare when furnished pursuant to an OIVIT regimen. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pay for Outpatient Intravenous Insulin Therapy (OIVIT) services provided on June 1, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the services (99205) provided on March 3, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 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 99205 is "Office or other outpatient visit for the 
evaluation and management of a new patient, which requires a medically appropriate history and/or 
examination and high level of medical decision making. When using time for code selection, 60-74 minutes of 
total time is spent on the date of the encounter". 
 
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 99205 is not supported by the records provided. Our reviewer found that  the documentation did not support a high level 
of decision-making or that the encounter took 60-74 minutes of total time as required. 
 
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 the services (99205) provided on March 3, 2023.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that the SNF admission is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says you do not meet the criteria for the SNF admission. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for care in a SNF when the four factors 
listed in the Medicare rules section are met. Custodial care is 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 SNF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested SNF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found you do not have daily skilled nursing needs that require the specialized skill, 
knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional nurse. You do not have daily skilled therapy needs that 
require the specialized skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional therapist. You do not require 
daily skilled nursing and/or skilled therapy on an inpatient basis in a skilled nursing facility (SNF) setting. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of SNF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for home health services provided from February 9, 2023, to 
February 28, 2023. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for the home health services. You say that the NOA was submitted timely, but it was 
rejected. You claim that this was a Plan error. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the NOA was not 
received timely. As such, this final claim was correctly denied.  
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that an NOA must be submitted within 5 days of the start of 
care date for home health services. NOAs which are received more than 30 days from the timely filing date 
result in no payment being made for the episode of care.  
 
In this case, the start of care date is January 10, 2023. The NOA was not received by the Plan until July 9, 
2023. As more than 30 days passed between the timely filing date and the NOA receipt, no payment can be 
made on this claim. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for home health services provided 
from February 9, 2023, to February 28, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure codes 96365, 96366, and 96521 for date of service 
March 23, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for codes 96365, 96366, and 96521. You say that you disagree with the Plan's 
denial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services billed are not supported. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that the evidence is adequate to conclude that 
outpatient intravenous (IV) insulin therapy (OIVIT) does not improve health outcomes in Medicare 
beneficiaries.  
 We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Review of the file shows that the services at issue are for OIVIT. 
These services are not covered. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of 
codes 96365, 96366, and 96521 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay 
for procedure codes 96365, 96366, and 96521 for date of service March 23, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 99497 billed for date of service January 21, 
2023. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 99497. You say that this claim was coded appropriately. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says payment for code 99497 is bundled into payment for code 99223. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate CPT code. In this case, we have confirmed that code 99497 
is a column II code to column I code 99223. This claim has not been billed with an appropriate modifier to 
bypass the edit. Based on the claim submitted, Medicare billing criteria have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 99497 billed for date of service January 21, 
2023.