Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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 require an 
acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The enrollee's medical 
status currently does not require intensive physician and nursing supervision in an IRF. While the enrollee may 
benefit from additional physical and occupational therapy the documentation does not support that he requires 
or can fully tolerate this therapy on an IRF level given his pain levels. 
 
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 long-term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the member is ready to transfer to an 
LTACH for his continued care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the rules for LTACH care have 
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 documentation provided necessitating admission to an LTACH. The 
enrollee still requires acute hospital services and is receiving appropriate care at the present acute care hospital. 
The enrollee does not require services at the LTACH that are not available at the acute care hospital where he 
is currently receiving care. There are no services available at the LTACH that the enrollee requires that are not 
available at the health care setting being offered by the health plan. 
 
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: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Partially Favorable

We decided that the Plan has to make additional payment for the deep sedation/general anesthesia services. We 
decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for the deep sedation/general anesthesia services.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the deep sedation/general anesthesia services. You say that you would like an 
exception to be made and these services paid for. The Plan says that these services are covered with a copay of 
$80.00 if a prior authorization was obtained. The Plan also says that a prior authorization was not obtained 
prior to the services being rendered. 
 
We decided that the Plan has to make additional payment for the deep sedation/general anesthesia 
services.  
 
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. 
 
The Plan contract does not clearly state that prior authorization is needed in order for covered services in the 
fee schedule to be paid for by the Plan. You reasonably believed these services would be covered by the Plan. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to make additional payment for the deep sedation/general anesthesia 
services.  
 
We also decided that the Plan does not have to waive the $80 copayment for the deep sedation/general 
anesthesia services. 
 
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, you are responsible for an $80 
copayment. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for the deep 
sedation/general anesthesia services. 
 
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: 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 clinical information provided supports the need 
for IRF care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an IRF admission is not medically necessary. The 
Plan say that the enrollee's needs can be met 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 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 
was admitted for frequent falls and has been discharged home with home health care. There is ongoing 
weakness. The enrollee's medical conditions are stable. There are no medical needs requiring inpatient 
admission. 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 documents a need for physical and occupational therapy, it does not 
document a need for an intensive rehabilitation program. There is not a reasonable expectation that the enrollee 
will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in an 
IRF. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the cost-sharing for physician services (J3420, 96372, 99214, 
1111) provided January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the cost-sharing for the services. You say that the copayments and coinsurance 
should be waived for the services because your out-of-pocket maximum was reached. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the maximum was not reached and the correct cost-sharing amounts were applied. 
 
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 have a maximum 
out-of-pocket limit of $2,750. 
 
At the time services were rendered, the out-of-pocket expenses totaled $1,920.90. The limit had not been 
reached. 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-sharing for physician services (J3420, 96372, 99214, 
1111) provided January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019.
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 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 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 daily 
skilled services are not necessary. Our physician reviewer found based on the medical records provided daily 
skilled services are not required. You do not require the services on an inpatient basis, in a skilled nursing 
facility setting. Services in the home with home health or in a long-term care facility on a part time basis appear 
appropriate in this case. 
 
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 pre-approve home health services to be provided by an out of 
network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve home health services. You say that you would like the plan to reconsider 
their denial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested services can be provided by a 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 
home health services to be provided by an out of network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a spinal cord stimulator (SCS). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve these 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 an SCS trial is covered when specific criteria are 
met. 
 
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 enrollee has chronic neck and low 
back pain. He continues with low back pain with radiculopathy despite conservative and interventional 
therapies. He is not a candidate for lumbar spine surgery as he has multilevel disc disease. The records do not 
support that the enrollee meets the criteria for coverage and the 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 these services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a spinal cord stimulator (SCS).
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Latanoprost. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Latanoprost. You say that the enrollee needs to maintain a normal 
intraocular pressure to stabilize his condition. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this drug is not 
covered for the enrollee's condition by Medicare Part B. 
 
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 pre-approve Latanoprost.  
 
Benefits for Latanoprost may be available under Medicare Part D. Contact the Plan that administers Part D 
benefits for further information concerning any benefits and appeal rights.
Appeal type: Hospice
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for physician's services provided on February 4, 2020. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the physician's services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says Original 
Medicare would be responsible for payment of all Medicare covered services related or unrelated to the 
member?s terminal condition. The Medicare hospice benefit, through fee-for-service Medicare, covers all 
hospice care from the effective date of election to the date of discharge or revocation. During the election, fee-
for-service Medicare also covers attending physician services and all care unrelated to the terminal illness until 
the first day of the month following the month in which hospice was revoked or discharged. 
 
Medicare rules say that Original Medicare, not the Plan, is responsible for all Medicare-covered non-hospice 
services. Medicare hospice pays for claims related to the terminal illness. The rules say that the Plan may direct 
the provider to bill Medicare directly for these services.  
 
The enrollee was under the Medicare hospice benefit for the dates of service at issue in this appeal. Therefore, 
we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for physician's services provided on February 4, 2020.
Appeal type: Hospice
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for physician's services provided on June 2, 2020. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the physician's services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says Original 
Medicare would be responsible for payment of all Medicare covered services related or unrelated to the 
member?s terminal condition. The Medicare hospice benefit, through fee-for-service Medicare, covers all 
hospice care from the effective date of election to the date of discharge or revocation. During the election, fee-
for-service Medicare also covers attending physician services and all care unrelated to the terminal illness until 
the first day of the month following the month in which hospice was revoked or discharged. 
 
Medicare rules say that Original Medicare, not the Plan, is responsible for all Medicare-covered non-hospice 
services. Medicare hospice pays for claims related to the terminal illness. The rules say that the Plan may direct 
the provider to bill Medicare directly for these services.  
 
The enrollee was under the Medicare hospice benefit for the dates of service at issue in this appeal. Therefore, 
we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for physician's services provided on June 2, 2020.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for the services provided. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the services are 
not supported. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare health plans must make reasonable and 
diligent efforts to gather and forward to the IRE information regarding its decision to deny coverage or 
payment. 
 
The Plan has not made reasonable and diligent efforts to gather and forward to us information regarding their 
decision to deny your request. In its denial, the Plan mentions an order form for NMES, but does not provide it. 
The Plan has not supported any documentation to support its denial. Without additional supporting 
documentation, the Plan?s denial cannot be substantiated. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for the 
services provided.  
 
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: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an inpatient skilled nursing facility (SNF) admission. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that an inpatient skilled nursing facility admission is 
medically necessary for the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet 
criteria for coverage of a SNF admission. 
 
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 the enrollee 
does not have complex daily wound care that can only be managed in a skilled nursing facility or other ongoing 
skilled nursing facility level need. The enrollee does not require skilled nursing or skilled therapy services (or a 
combination of these services) on a daily basis in a skilled nursing facility. Additionally, as a practical matter, 
the 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 SNF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve an inpatient skilled nursing facility (SNF) admission.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve admission to an inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) for the enrollee. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the services can be safely received in other settings, for example: skilled nursing facility. 
 
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 
was admitted for a right above the knee amputation. Medical conditions are stable. There are no medical needs 
requiring inpatient admission. 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 documents a need for physical and 
occupational therapy, it does not document a need for an intensive rehabilitation program. 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 admission to an inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) for the enrollee.
Appeal type: Other
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Lantus Solos injection for the enrollee. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the injection. You say that this is needed to treat a diagnosis of type 2 
diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this medication falls under 
Part coverage. 
 
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 pre-approve Lantus Solos injection for 
the enrollee.