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

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve inpatient skilled nursing facility (SNF) care. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that inpatient skilled nursing facility care is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you do not meet criteria for coverage of inpatient 
skilled nursing facility care. 
 
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 SNF care. Our reviewer says that 
inpatient skilled nursing facility care is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that you do not 
require skilled nursing or skilled therapy services on a daily basis. Additionally, as a practical matter, you do 
not meet severity of illness or intensity of service criteria for 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 SNF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve inpatient skilled nursing facility (SNF) care.
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 IRF care is medically necessary due to lack of current progress. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says rules for IRF care 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 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 does not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. In addition, the patient 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. Finally, there is not a reasonable expectation that this patient 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: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the core buildup, including any pins when required or pay more than 30% coinsurance for the root canal provided on November 2, 2020.
You asked the Plan to pay for the core buildup and root canal. You say that providers for root canals are limited in your area, with no in-network providers. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says core buildup is not a covered benefit. The Plan also says that a root canal is covered at 30% in-network by the Plan.
Medicare generally does not cover dental services. However, the Plan offers a dental benefit that exceeds Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plan's coverage rules apply in this case. Though the Plan offers a dental benefit in excess of Medicare coverage, core buildup, including any pins when required not among those covered under this benefit. The Plan agreed to pay the in-network rate of 30% for the root canal due to the lack of in-network providers in your area. The contract also says that you must pay a 70% coinsurance for a root canal provided in-network, and the Plan does not have to pay more than 30%. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the core buildup, including any pins when required or pay more than 30% coinsurance for the root canal provided on November 2, 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 IRF care is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the criteria for IRF care are not 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 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 patient was admitted for atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response, sepsis and a urinary tract infection. Medical problems are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. 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 patient 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: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to approve additional routine transports. 
 
You asked the Plan to approve these services. You say that The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
enrollee has exhausted the benefit limit. 
 
Medicare does not cover transport in a vehicle that is not an ambulance. However, the Plan offers a 
transportation benefit that exceeds Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plan's coverage rules apply in this 
case. The Plan covers a maximum of 36 one-way trips per year.  
 
We looked at your request, the records in the case file, and the rules. Based on this information, we decided 
that you have exhausted the Plan maximum benefit for coverage of routine transportation. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to approve additional routine transports.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve foot orthotics provided.

You asked the Plan to pre-approve foot orthotics. You say that you have been dealing with pain and discomfort since your foot surgery. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this item is not a covered benefit.

Medicare rules state that supportive devices for the feet (such as orthotics) are only covered for patients with diabetic foot disease or for patients who wear a leg brace. The Plan follows these same rules.

Records show that you do not suffer from diabetic foot disease and you do not wear a leg brace. Although orthotics may be appropriate for you, neither Medicare nor the Plan provides coverage of orthotics for your condition. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve foot orthotics provided.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the cost shares for the diagnostic imaging services.

You asked the Plan to waive the cost shares for the services provided. You say that you were not told there is an extra charge for the dye. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the claim was processed 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).

You have been asked to pay a 20% coinsurance for Fluorodeoxyglucose, and a $105 for the positron emission tomography (PET) scan provided. The services fall within the Medicare Part B prescription drugs and outpatient diagnostic benefit categories. 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 cost shares for the diagnostic imaging services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve incontinence supplies.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve incontinence supplies. You say that you believe this should be covered. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this item is not a covered benefit.
The Plan covers all items that Medicare covers. Medicare rules state that incontinence supplies are not covered because they are hygienic items that are non-reusable. While incontinence supplies may be appropriate in this case, neither the Plan nor Medicare offers coverage of these items. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve incontinence supplies.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the ophthalmological medical examination and evaluation (92012) and the visual field examination (92083) rendered by the out of network (OON) provider on June 23, 2020.
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 had network providers available who could have provided 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 ophthalmological medical examination and evaluation (92012) and the visual field examination (92083) rendered by the out of network (OON) provider on June 23, 2020.
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 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. 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 there is no evidence that the enrollee requires services that are not currently
available. As LTACHs and acute care hospitals (ACHs) are licensed to provide the same level of care, there is
no advantage in transferring the enrollee to the LTACH. The enrollee can remain at the current ACH until such
time no acute services are required. The enrollee can then be transferred/discharged to a lower level of care for
any ongoing long-term care (LTC) needs.

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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve insertion of an interspinous spacer device (Vertiflex).

You asked the Plan to pre-approve Vertiflex. You say that Vertiflex would provide significant clinical and quality of life benefits for the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the denial of authorization for this service is correct, because Vertiflex is experimental/investigational.

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 Vertiflex. Our reviewer says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found Vertiflex is considered an experimental/investigational procedure at this time.

We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of Vertiflex have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve insertion of an interspinous spacer device (Vertiflex).
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for efinaconazole (JUBLIA) received on July 3, 2020. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for efinaconazole (JUBLIA). You say that you would like the Plan to reconsider 
their denial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the item received is not a covered benefit. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare Part B generally does not pay for self-
administered drugs. The self-administered drugs requested here are not among the types which are covered by 
Medicare Part B. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for efinaconazole (JUBLIA) 
received on July 3, 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. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that it is the physician's opinion that the 
enrollee should be transferred to LTACH immediately for extended acute care. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says the denial of authorization for LTACH is correct. 
 
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 more stable and should only require short-term acute care services 
which can be safely received at the current facility until completed. There are no services at the LTACH which 
the patient requires that are not already available and covered at the current facility. Transfer to a lower level of 
care may be considered soon when treatment has been completed. 
 
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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve knee arthroscopy for the enrollee. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the surgery. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says there is no indication of a failure of provider-directed non-surgical management for at 
least three months. 
 
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 surgery. Our reviewer says that the 
requested services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer 
found the knee surgery is not needed. There is no documentation of a trial of PT for knee pain. There are no red 
flags for surgery at this time. More conservative measures are needed. 
 
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 surgery have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve knee arthroscopy 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 you need IRF care. The Plan denied your request.
The Plan says rules for IRF care 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 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 that the complexity of your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not require
an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. In addition, 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. Finally, 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: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for the inpatient stay provided from November 
21, 2020, through November 25, 2020. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for the inpatient stay. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 
the copayment applied 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). The enrollee's contract with the Plan clearly says that enrollees 
must pay a $360 copayment per day for days 1 through 5 for covered in-network hospital care. 
 
The enrollee has been asked to pay a $1,440 copayment for the inpatient stay. ($360/day x 4 days = $1,440). 
The inpatient stay falls within the "Inpatient hospital care" benefit category. This means that the enrollee has 
been asked to pay the correct amount based on the contract with the Plan. This cost sharing is a contractual 
obligation the enrollee agreed to pay upon enrolling in the Plan. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to waive the copayment for the inpatient stay provided from November 21, 2020, through November 25, 
2020.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for the office visit.

You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for the office visit. You say that you were not responding to antibiotics and wanted to confirm this was not COVID. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the copayment applied 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 a $25 copayment for provider and professional services at an in-network specialist's office.

You have been asked to pay a $25 copayment for the office visit. The office visit falls within the "Physician/Practitioner services, including doctor's office visits" 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. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for the office visit.
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 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. 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 enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. 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.