Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Outpatient Therapies
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the medical services to be provided by an out of 
network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the medical services. You say that you have used this provider in the past. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you can get the services with an in-network provider. 
 
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 pre-approve care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving 
emergencies, out of area urgent care and care that cannot be provided by network providers. 
 
The requested provider in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan has network providers 
available who can provide the items/services at issue in this appeal. We found no exception that would require 
the Plan to pre-approve these items/services. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve 
the medical services to be provided by an out of network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve admission to a skilled nursing facility (SNF) for the 
enrollee. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the admission. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the services can be safely received in a different setting, for example: home with 
home health, in residential care, or home with close follow-up with the doctor. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for care in a SNF when the four factors 
listed above 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 the admission. Our reviewer says that 
daily skilled services are not necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee does not require skilled 
nursing services with the specialized skill, knowledge and judgment of a skilled professional nurse required to 
safely and effectively provide medically necessary and reasonable treatment in a SNF. The enrollee does not 
have complex wound care or other ongoing SNF level SN need. The enrollee's high functional level does not 
require skilled therapy services with the specialized skill, knowledge and judgment of a qualified therapist  to 
safely and effectively provide medically necessary and reasonable treatment in a SNF. The enrollee does not 
require skilled nursing or skilled therapy services (or a combination of these services) on a "daily basis" in a 
SNF. As a practical matter, this enrollee does not require the necessary services on an inpatient basis, in a 
skilled nursing facility 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 the admission have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve admission to a skilled nursing facility (SNF) for the enrollee.
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. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says that documentation does not demonstrate a need for complex 
interdisciplinary therapy. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described above. 
 
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. The 
documentation does not support that the complexity of your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs require 
an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The limited 
documentation does not support that you have complex medical issues that require acute rehab nursing care, or 
monitoring by an inpatient physical medicine and rehab physician three times per week. Our physician 
reviewer found that your condition does not meet Medicare criteria for IRF 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 injection services (HCPCS S0028) provided to the enrollee 
on January 23, 2020. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. You say that this should be paid for. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says this is an invalid procedure code for this service. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate code. 
 
In this case, the CPT Code Manual definition of HCPCS code S0028 is "Injection, famotidine, 20 mg." 
 
We find that HCPCS code S0028 is not supported in the medical record. Specifically, this code has a status 
indicator of I according to the Medicare Physician's Fee Schedule. This indicates that the code is not valid for 
Medicare purposes. 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 injection services (HCPCS 
S0028) provided to the enrollee on January 23, 2020.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the stay is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the stay 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 above. 
 
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. The patient's 
medical status does not currently require intensive physician and nursing oversight only in an IRF. The patient 
may benefit from multiple therapies such as physical and occupational therapy but the documentation does not 
support that the patient's functional level and endurance level requires and can tolerate an 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 IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the anesthetic agent injections (64447, 64450), and the 
ultrasonic guidance for needle placement (76942) rendered by the out of network (OON) provider on 
November 7, 2019. 
 
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 the services were rendered by an out of 
network provider, without prior authorization. 
 
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 in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan has network providers available 
who can provide the services at issue in this appeal. The Plan did not pre-approve the services at issue. We 
found no exception that would require the Plan to pay for these services. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pay for the anesthetic agent injections (64447, 64450), and the ultrasonic guidance for needle 
placement (76942) rendered by the out of network (OON) provider on November 7, 2019.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the services (CPT 62321) provided on February 7, 2020. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the billed service 
cannot be verified. 
 
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 62321 is "Injection(s), of diagnostic or therapeutic 
substance(s) (eg, anesthetic, antispasmodic, opioid, steroid, other solution), not including neurolytic substances, 
including needle or catheter placement, interlaminar epidural or subarachnoid, cervical or thoracic; with 
imaging guidance (ie, fluoroscopy or CT)". 
 
We asked our coding 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 services. Our reviewer says that the use 
of CPT code 62321 is not supported by the records provided. Our coding reviewer found that the procedure 
report does not include a documentation note to verify that this service was provided. 
 
We looked at this coders 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 (CPT 62321) provided on February 7, 2020.
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. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says that clinical documentation does not indicate that you need specialized 
therapeutic skills or equipment. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described above. 
 
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. The 
complexity of your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not require an acute hospital inpatient stay 
with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. You do require physical therapy and occupational 
therapy services but based on the medical records provided you do not require an intensive inpatient 
rehabilitation therapy program. There is concern that you will not be able to fully participate in and benefit 
from the intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in an inpatient rehabilitation facility. Our physician 
reviewer found that your condition does not meet Medicare criteria for IRF 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 services are medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the 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 above. 
 
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 medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee was admitted to the 
hospital on September 22, 2020 after a fall with resulting left hip, right calcaneal, and left Lisfranc fractures. 
He underwent left hip surgery on September 23, 2020. The physical therapy evaluation on September 25, 2020 
notes he needed modified assist of two to sit up and stand up. He was performing static marching. The enrollee 
does not require the intensity of services provided at an IRF.  Specifically, the enrollee is not shown to require 
fifteen hours per week of rehabilitative services and regular physician evaluation. The IRF services are 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 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: ER
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for the emergency department visit (99285) 
provided on November 26, 2019. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment. You say that you are requesting a reconsideration of the Plan's 
denial for payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the copayment has been applied correctly to 
the service provided. 
 
The rules say a plan must disclose to its enrollees in clear, accurate terms all cost sharing information (such as 
copayments, deductibles and coinsurance). Your contract with the Plan clearly says that you must pay a $120 
copayment for in-network emergency room services provided.  
 
You have been asked to pay a $120 copayment for the in-network emergency room service provided. This 
copayment has been applied as the record shows you received outpatient services at the hospital subsequently 
thereafter the emergency room visit. The Plan contract states that in order for the emergency room copayment 
to be waived, you must be admitted as inpatient to the hospital within twenty four hours for the same condition. 
This means that you have been asked to pay the correct amount based on your contract with the Plan. This cost 
sharing is a contractual obligation you agreed to pay when you enrolled in the Plan. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for the emergency department visit (99285) provided on 
November 26, 2019.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Vertiflex spacer. 
 
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 submitted records show that you 
have a history of chronic back pain. There is no documented spinal instability. The requested Vertiflex spacer 
is considered experimental in nature, as more research is needed to show its safety and effectiveness. 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 Vertiflex spacer.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you require more services to get back to functional 
levels. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you are medically stable, and do not need an intensive team 
for 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 above. 
 
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 physician reviewer found 
that you are dependent for washing self, toileting, dressing. You are at moderate assist for grooming, and 
supervision for eating. You have dyspnea walking over 20 feet. You also have chronic issues with arthritis and 
fibromyalgia. The complexity of your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not require an acute hospital 
inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. Your medical status does not currently 
require intensive physician and nursing oversight only in an IRF. You may benefit from physical and 
occupational therapy, but the documentation does not support that your endurance level can tolerate an 
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 waive the copayment for the arthrocentesis services and to waive the 
coinsurance for the triamcinolone acetonide injection provided on May 1, 2020. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for the arthrocentesis services and to waive the coinsurance for the 
triamcinolone acetonide injection. You say that you disagree with the amount owed. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the claim has been processed correctly per your plan benefits. 
 
The rules say a plan must disclose to its enrollees in clear, accurate terms all cost sharing information (such as 
copayments, deductibles and coinsurance). Your contract with the Plan clearly says that you must pay a $30 
copayment for services obtained from a specialist, or under certain circumstances, treatment by a nurse 
practitioner or physicians assistant or other non-physician health care professionals in a specialists office. 
Your contract with the Plan clearly says that you must pay 20% coinsurance for each Medicare-covered Part B 
drug. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $30 copayment for the arthrocentesis services and a 20% coinsurance for the 
triamcinolone acetonide injection. The arthrocentesis services fall within the physician/practitioner services 
benefit category and the triamcinolone acetonide injection services fall within the Medicare Part B drug 
category. This means that you have been asked to pay the correct amount based on your contract with the Plan. 
This cost sharing is a contractual obligation you agreed to pay when you enrolled in the Plan. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for the arthrocentesis services and to waive the 
coinsurance for the triamcinolone acetonide injection provided on May 1, 2020.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the domiciliary or rest home visit (99336) rendered by the 
out of network (OON) provider on April 17, 2020. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for this service. You say that you are requesting a reconsideration of the Plan's 
denial for payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the service was rendered by an out of network 
provider, without prior authorization. 
 
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 in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan has network providers available 
who can provide the service at issue in this appeal. The Plan did not pre-approve the service at issue. We found 
no exception that would require the Plan to pay for this service. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pay for the domiciliary or rest home visit (99336) rendered by the out of network (OON) provider on 
April 17, 2020.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services for the 
enrollee. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that these services are medically necessary. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the records do not support that the enrollee has completed the 
full course in the hospital. 
 
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. The enrollee 
is still receiving acute hospital level of care services and is receiving appropriate care at the present acute care 
facility. 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 health plan. Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee's condition 
does not meet Medicare criteria for LTACH services. 
 
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 for the enrollee.