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

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a skilled nursing facility (SNF) admission. You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says daily skilled services are not medically necessary. The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for care in a SNF when the four factors listed in the Medicare rules section are met. Custodial care is not covered. We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve SNF services. Our physician reviewer found that from a nursing perspective, you had stable vital signs, was tolerating an oral diet, and had uncomplicated sacral wound care. There are no identifiable skilled nursing service needs. Regarding rehab services, you were at a standby to independent assist level with bed mobility, supervision to contact guard assist with transfers and gait. You required varying assist with activities of daily living. Although there are identifiable skilled therapy service needs, you do not require skilled nursing or therapy services on a daily basis. You do not meet severity of illness or intensity of service criteria for an inpatient basis in a SNF setting. We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of SNF services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a skilled nursing facility (SNF) admission.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for laboratory services provided by an out-of-network provider on October 26, 2020.
You asked the Plan to pay for laboratory services. You say that you were not aware of the requirement of obtaining prior authorization. You say that you conducted the laboratory testing ordered by the referring provider, and the documentation supports the request of benefits. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says prior authorization for out-of-network services was not obtained.
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 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 laboratory services provided by an out-of-network provider on October 26, 2020.
Appeal type: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve additional routine transportation trips.You asked the Plan to pre-approve the additional routine transportation trips. You say that more rides are needed for physician office visits, doctors testing, and grocery shopping.The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's routine transportation benefit has been exhausted.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 24 one-way routine transportation 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 pre-approve additional routine transportation trips.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for the colonoscopy provided on December 29, 2020.
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for the colonoscopy. You say that according to the Evidence of Coverage, your copayment should have been $225. 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 $350 copayment for each Medicare-covered outpatient surgery at an in-network ambulatory surgical center. You have been asked to pay $345, which is less than the standard $350 copayment for the colonoscopy. The colonoscopy falls within the "Outpatient surgery, including services provided at hospital outpatient facilities and ambulatory surgical centers" 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 colonoscopy provided on December 29, 2020.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Favorable

We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the scan. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the medical notes do not document the severity or duration of the symptoms.
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that CT scans are covered only when they are medically necessary. We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the scan. Our reviewer says that the requested scan is medically reasonable and necessary. Our physician reviewer found you have persistent abdominal pain with a systematic workup. The ultrasound was not helpful. Given the persistent nature of the symptoms, and a need for diagnosis, the requested CT scans are reasonable tests for evaluation given the persistent nature of the pain and the prior ultrasound. 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 scan have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-approve CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis.
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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the nutria-pharmaceutical injections and treatment with a Sanexas device reported on October 28, 2020.

You asked the Plan to pay for the nutria-pharmaceutical injections and treatment with a Sanexas device. You say that the treatment was medically necessary and should be covered. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the record does not support that the procedures were performed 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, the HCPCS/CPT Code Manual definition of code 97016 is application of blood vessel compression or decompression device to 1 or more areas. The HCPCS/CPT Code Manual definition of code 97032 is application of a modality to 1 or more areas; electrical stimulation (manual), each 15 minutes. The HCPCS/CPT Code Manual definition of code 97150 is therapeutic procedure(s), group (2 or more individuals). The HCPCS/CPT Code Manual definition of code 96372 is therapeutic, prophylactic, or diagnostic injection (specify substance or drug); subcutaneous or intramuscular. The HCPCS/CPT Code Manual definition of code J3490 is unclassified drug injection. The HCPCS/CPT Code Manual definition of code J3411 is injection, thiamine hcl, 100 mg. The HCPCS/CPT Code Manual definition of code J3415 is injection, pyridoxine hcl, 100 mg.

We find that HCPCS/CPT codes 97016, 97032, and 97150 are not supported in the medical record. Specifically, the record does not support that a blood vessel compression device was applied. The manufacturer of the Sanexas device describes it as an electric cell signaling energy wave device, which does not meet the criteria to report CPT code 97016. The record also does not support that manual electrical stimulation was applied to any area for any amount of time. The record states that the Sanexas device was applied using standard programs. This does not support constant direct patient contact, which is required to report CPT code 97032. The record also does not support that therapeutic procedures in a group of 2 or more was performed. The record does not mention any therapeutic procedures, or the presence of any other patients receiving therapy at the same time; the criteria for reporting CPT code 97150 has not been met.

Payment for HCPCS/CPT codes 96372, J3490, J3411, and J3415 are not supported. Specifically, the record does not contain documentation of the dosage and type of drug administered in each injection, which is required by Medicare for these services to be reimbursed.

Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the nutria-pharmaceutical injections and treatment with a Sanexas device have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the nutria-pharmaceutical injections and treatment with a Sanexas device reported on October 28, 2020.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for laboratory services provided by an out-of-network provider on August 4, 2020.
You asked the Plan to pay for the laboratory services. You say that you are requesting retro authorization and the claim should be processed for payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this provider is not a network provider with the Plan and the services were not approved in advance.
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 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 laboratory services provided by an out-of-network provider on August 4, 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 you recently had surgery and IRF would be the best way for you to have therapy. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the denial of authorization for IRF service is correct.

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 do require physical and occupational therapy, but there is no documented need for an intensive rehabilitation program. Medically necessary services 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: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for the inpatient stay provided from April 27, 2020, through May 6, 2020.
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for the inpatient stay. You say that the Plan said cost share is being waived during the epidemic. You say that you are disputing the bill. 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 $395 copayment each day for days 1 to 4 for in-network, Medicare-covered hospital care. $0 copayment for additional Medicare-covered days. You have been asked to pay a $1,580 copayment for the inpatient stay. ($395/day x 4 days = $1,580). The inpatient stay falls within the "Inpatient Hospital Care" benefit category. The Plan says that only cost share for primary care services and specialist services was being waived. 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 inpatient stay provided from April 27, 2020, through May 6, 2020.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to provide coverage for additional routine transportation trips.

You asked the Plan to provide coverage for the additional routine transportation trips. The Plan denied your
request. The Plan says you have used eleven (11) one-way trips of the twelve (12) one-way trips covered by
your health Plan for the year 2021. The enrollee has one (1) one-way trip available.

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 12 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 provide coverage for additional routine transportation trips.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve two core buildups, including any pins when required, a pontic, and two retainer crowns.

You asked the Plan to pre-approve the core buildups, pontic, and retainer crowns. You say that these procedures should be covered under your plan for preventive care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says these services are not covered.

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, the requested items or services are not among those covered under this benefit. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve two core buildups, including any pins when required, a pontic, and two retainer crowns.
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 records provided support the need for care in an IRF. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the criteria for coverage of IRF care have not been met. The Plan says that the enrollee's needed care can be provided safely at a less intensive 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 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 patellar fracture after a fall. The enrollee's medical conditions are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. The enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. The enrollee does require physical and occupational therapy but there is no documented need for an intensive rehabilitation program. Medically necessary services can be provided in a different level of care. There is not a reasonable expectation that this enrollee will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF. We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for loop recorder monitoring (93298) provided January 27, 2021.
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for loop recorder monitoring. You say that the copayment should be waived. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the correct cost-sharing was 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 must pay a $30 copayment for Diagnostic Tests. You have been asked to pay a $30 copayment for loop recorder monitoring. Loop recorder monitoring falls within the Diagnostic Tests 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 loop recorder monitoring (93298) provided January 27, 2021.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a group 3 power wheelchair and accessories.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the group 3 power wheelchair and accessories. You say that the records provided support the need for the requested items. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the records show that the enrollee's current chair can be repaired and still meet the enrollee's needs.
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say Medicare covers DME only when it is reasonable and necessary. If DME serves the same purpose as equipment already available to an enrollee, it is not considered reasonable and necessary. The file shows that you have a power wheelchair. The requested group 3 power wheelchair serves the same purpose as the power wheelchair you currently have. The records do not show that you meet the criteria for coverage of a new power wheelchair because the cost of repair for your present power wheelchair is significantly lower than the cost of a new group 3 power wheelchair. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a group 3 power wheelchair and accessories.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the x-rays provided by an out-of-network provider on November 12, 2020.
You asked the Plan to pay for the x-rays. You say that the member cannot choose what provider reads her x-rays and never sees the doctor face to face. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says authorization was not obtained prior to the services being rendered. 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 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 the x-rays provided by an out-of-network provider on November 12, 2020.