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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the intracept procedure (64628 and 64629). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the services. You say that the services are medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the services are 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 services. Our reviewer says that the 
requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) shows spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis. The cause 
of back pain is not clear. 
 
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 the intracept procedure (64628 and 64629).
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure codes 99156, 99157, & A4550 billed for date of 
service February 3, 2021.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure codes 99156, 99157, & A4550. You say that this service was 
medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the claim cannot be paid as billed. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate CPT code. In this case, we have confirmed that codes 
99156, & 99157 are column II codes to column I code 64633 with a modifier indicator of 0. The column II 
codes are therefore not payable. Code A4550 has a status of "B" and is not eligible for separate payment. 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 codes 99156, 99157, & A4550 billed for date of service February 3, 2021.
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 reconsideration for 
the denial of an IRF admission. You say the enrollee has several broken bones and needs rehabilitation to gain 
their independence and learn how to walk again. 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 patient's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. While the 
medical record supports a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for 
intensive rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different level of care. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you need inpatient care so that you can get back to 
the level you were before. You could walk before and now you cannot even stand alone and are unable to get 
out of bed without help. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you do not meet IRF criteria and can be 
managed at a lower level of care. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section.  
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines.  Our 
physician reviewer found 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 past medical 
history of diabetes, atrial fibrillation, obesity and pressure ulcers and is living at home with weakness. Your 
medical problems are stable and you have 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a chiropractic office visit (99202) provided on December 19, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the office visit. You say that this service was medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the billed service is not covered under Medicare. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that the only chiropractic service Medicare covers is 
manual manipulation of the spine to correct a subluxation.  
 
The records show that the service at issue is not manual manipulation of the spine.  Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pay for a chiropractic office visit (99202) provided on December 19, 2022.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the laboratory services related to end-stage renal disease 
(ESRD) provided on January 26, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the ESRD-related laboratory services. You say that your organization does not 
have a contract with the dialysis facility for payment of these lab services. The Plan denied your request. The 
Plan says Medicare does not separately pay for ESRD-related laboratory testing. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules state that routine ESRD laboratory services are not 
separately payable. Laboratories should bill the facility directly for laboratory services as they are considered 
part of the composite rate. No other payment for these services is allowed. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pay for the laboratory services related to end-stage renal disease (ESRD) provided on January 
26, 2023.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a home ventilator. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a home ventilator. You say that a home ventilator is medically necessary for 
the patient. Use of home ventilation during exertion and with mobility will allow the patient to increase daily 
activity levels and work towards better overall health. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the patient's 
needs can be met with a bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) device with average volume-assured pressure 
support (AVAPS). 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that ventilators may be covered when they are medically 
necessary for patients who have neuromuscular disease, thoracic restrictive diseases, and chronic respiratory 
failure due to COPD. 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve a home ventilator. Our reviewer says 
that a home ventilator is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found this patient has a diagnosis of 
COPD, with repeated hospital admissions.  Multiple arterial blood gases over recent weeks have shown varying 
degrees of partially compensated hypercarbia.  Pulmonary function tests in 2020 show moderate obstructive 
lung disease.  The patient has an enlarging pulmonary nodule.  There is no diagnosis of thoracic restrictive 
disease or neuromuscular disease.  It appears this patient has chronic CO2 retention related to COPD and may 
benefit from BiPAP with AVAPS during sleep as an outpatient.  Medicare does not cover a home ventilator 
when used at settings that can be provided with BiPAP. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of a home ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a home ventilator.
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 services are medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says ongoing skilled care can be provided in an alternative setting.  
 
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 enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies. 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 pre-approve a sacroiliac joint injection. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the injection. You say that you are requesting reconsideration for the denial 
of a sacroiliac joint injection. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the service requested is not covered 
based on medical necessity.  
 
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 injection. Our reviewer says that 
the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found there is no documentation of three months of conservative therapy. Therefore, the request is 
deemed not medically reasonable and necessary. 
 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 injection have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a sacroiliac joint injection.
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 criteria for admission to the acute IRF setting 
have not been met.  
 
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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a MyoPro Motion G orthosis. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve these services. You say that you disagree with the denial. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the services are 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 these services. Our reviewer says that 
the services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the MyoPro orthosis is not known to be 
effective, based on scientific evidence, professional standards and expert opinion, in improving health 
outcomes. The MyoPro is not the standard of care for the enrollee's brachial plexus condition or in widespread 
use for the enrollee's condition based on scientific evidence. There is insufficient evidence in the literature that 
the MyoPro orthosis will improve the long-term outcomes for the enrollee. There is insufficient evidence in the literature that this device will increase participation in bimanual activities. The services are therefore not 
reasonable or medically necessary. 
 
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 not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a MyoPro Motion G orthosis.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for inpatient hospital services billed with diagnosis code A41.9 
rendered from July 2, 2022, to July 3, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the inpatient hospital services at the DRG originally billed. You say that this 
should be paid for. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says A41.9 cannot be validated as the principal 
diagnosis. 
 
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 diagnosis code A41.9. 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 the enrollee does not have sufficient evidence to support a systemic infection or one that 
caused organ failure related to a dysregulation of the infection. Sepsis 3 criteria is not met. The patient had 
stopped their medication and quickly recovered after initial treatment for her COPD exacerbation. Therefore, 
the code, A41.9, sepsis, is not supported.   
 
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 billed with diagnosis code A41.9 rendered from July 2, 2022, to July 3, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an office visit provided on January 7, 2023, by an out-of-
network (OON) provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for an office visit. You say that this is supported in the records. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says this was not authorized. 
 
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 requested provider in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan had network providers 
available who could have provided the items/services at issue in this appeal. The Plan did not pre-approve the 
item/service at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay for these items/services. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an office visit provided on January 7, 2023, by an 
out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for platelet-rich plasma injections rendered on November 10, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the injections. You say that this service is approved by the Food and Drug 
Administration (FDA). The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the clinical value and effectiveness of 
these injections in the setting of osteoarthritis has not been demonstrated in the peer-reviewed literature. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that items and services that are not medically 
necessary are not covered.  
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pay for the injections. Our reviewer says that the 
requested services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case.  Our physician reviewer 
found that this is considered an experimental and investigational therapy. It was not medically reasonable or 
necessary.  
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 injections have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pay for platelet-rich plasma injections rendered on November 10, 2022.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for lab services provided on October 5, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the lab services. You say that this service was medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says you billed with an incorrect place of service on the claim. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that, for lab services, the POS code must reflect the 
location in which the sample was taken. POS code 81 is used to describe samples taken by the laboratory 
directly.  
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of the lab services have not been met. Specifically, this claim was billed with the laboratory POS 
code. The records do not support that the sample was taken in a laboratory setting.  Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pay for lab services provided on October 5, 2022.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitor (CGM) 
system. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a Dexcom G6 CGM system. You say that the services are necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says based on the documentation provided, coverage criteria has not been 
met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that therapeutic CGMs are considered medically 
reasonable and necessary when prescribed in accordance with their FDA indications for enrollees with diabetes 
who are insulin treated or who have a history of problematic hypoglycemia, and have had an in-person visit 
with their treating physician to evaluate their diabetes control and determine whether the criteria for coverage 
have been met. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The documentation indicates that the enrollee does not use insulin or 
have a history of problematic hypoglycemia. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of a Dexcom G6 CGM system have not been met.  Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve a Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitor (CGM) system.