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 medical records provided support the necessity of 
the services in dispute. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the criteria for 
the IRF admission. Care can be provided in a lower level of care such as a 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 patient's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The patient 
does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and 
an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. 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: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for a diagnostic mammogram provided by a 
participating provider on May 21, 2020. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for a diagnostic mammogram. You say that you thought this would 
be covered 100%. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the correct copayment has been 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 $40 
copayment for outpatient diagnostic tests/basic imaging service.  
 
You have been asked to pay a $40 copayment for a diagnostic mammogram. The mammogram that was 
provided was diagnostic in nature; therefore, the correct copayment has been applied. A diagnostic 
mammogram falls within the outpatient diagnostic tests/basic imaging service 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 a diagnostic mammogram provided by a participating provider on 
May 21, 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 want the services approved. 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 submitted records show that 
you were admitted to the hospital on October 15, 2020, with a fall and right femur fracture in the leg. You were 
treated with surgical repair of the fracture. You are working with physical and occupational therapy and need a 
front-wheeled walker. You need assistance with transfers and activities of daily living. 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 require further physical therapy and occupational therapy 
but do not require an intensive therapy program 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 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 ongoing skilled services can be provided in an alternative setting. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described 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. You 
are medically stable after a hip fracture and surgery. There is no evidence of need for supervision by physical 
medicine and rehab physician three times a week or needing acute rehab nursing care. The documentation does 
not support that there is a need for an intensive therapy program with 3 hours a day and an interdisciplinary 
approach to rehab care. Your rehab needs can be safely and effectively met in an alternate, less intense setting 
such as in an SNF. 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: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for laboratory services provided on January 14, 2020. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the laboratory services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the Plan 
requires utilization of network providers when possible and available, and requires authorization for certain 
services. No medical necessity for an out-of-network provider, such as an urgent or emergency situation, has 
been documented.   
 
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 
laboratory services. 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 laboratory services provided on January 14, 2020.
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 you did not have documented skilled nursing 
needs. You did not have documented skilled therapy needs. Daily skilled services were not required to establish 
a maintenance program or to prevent deterioration of your condition. Your care needs at this point were 
custodial and, as a practical matter, could be provided at a lower level of care. 

 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an elbow orthosis (L3761) and a lumbar-sacral orthosis 
(L0650) provided to the enrollee on December 17, 2019. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the orthoses. You say that the claim should be paid. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the documentation does not indicate services are necessary for treatment of the 
enrollee's condition. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules state that DMEPOS is covered only when the patient's medical 
record contains sufficient documentation of the patient's medical condition to substantiate the necessity for the 
type and quantity of items ordered and for the frequency of use.  
 
The record shows that documentation submitted did not indicate the provider discussed the need for the billed 
supply code, so the billed supply code cannot be verified. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pay for an elbow orthosis (L3761) and a lumbar-sacral orthosis (L0650) provided to the enrollee on December 
17, 2019.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you will die if not admitted into the IRF. 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 you do not require the intensity of services provided at an IRF. Specifically, you are 
not shown to be able to perform fifteen hours per week of rehabilitative services with regular physician 
evaluation. Your care needs can be met at a lower level of care (for example, a skilled nursing facility or sub-
acute rehabilitation facility). 
 
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 IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the semi-electric hospital bed.
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the semi-electric hospital bed. You say that you would like reconsideration because this bed is medically necessary for the safety of the member. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the member does not have congestive heart failure, chronic pulmonary disease, or problems with aspiration and member does not require traction equipment
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 semi-electric hospital bed. Our reviewer says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found the documentation does not clearly reveal that the member's condition has failed positioning of the bed in ways not feasible in an ordinary bed or why positioning of the bed in other ways is not feasible. The documentation does not support a need for an immediate or frequent change in body position or special attachments that cannot be fixed on an ordinary bed. 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 semi-electric hospital bed have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the semi-electric hospital bed.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for 3D rendering with interpretation and reporting (76377) 
provided on March 12, 2020. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the 3D rendering. You say that you would like reconsideration based on the 
records submitted. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the documentation submitted does not support 
the service 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 CPT Code Manual definition of code 76377 is 3D rendering with interpretation and reporting 
of computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, or other tomographic modality with image 
postprocessing under concurrent supervision; requiring image postprocessing on an independent workstation. 
 
We asked our coder 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 3D rendering. Our reviewer says that CPT code 76377 
does not meet criteria for billing or reimbursement consideration. Our reviewer found the report did not include 
3D rendering with interpretation and reporting. 
 
 
 
 
 
We looked at this coder's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the 3D rendering have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pay for 3D rendering with interpretation and reporting (76377) provided on March 12, 2020.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the cost share for the vision services provided on June 30, 
2020. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the cost share for the vision services. You say that you feel you should not be 
responsible for this cost share amount and you would like the Plan to reconsider your request. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says you received an ophthalmology exam on the date of service at issue in this appeal. 
The Plan says that the correct cost share has applied per your contract with the Plan. 
 
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 $40 
copayment per visit for Medicare-covered exams to diagnose and treat diseases of the eye, including an annual 
glaucoma screening for members at high risk. 
 
We looked at the file, the Plan's contract and Medicare rules. The file shows that you received an 
ophthalmology exam on June 30, 2020. You have been asked to pay a $40 copayment for the vision services. 
The vision services fall within the Vision services 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 
cost share for the vision services provided on June 30, 2020.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a behavioral health inpatient admission provided from March 
13, 2020, through March 25, 2020. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the behavioral health inpatient admission. The Plan denied your request. The 
Plan says prior authorization was not obtained by the provider or the facility. 
 
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 
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 a behavioral health inpatient admission provided from March 13, 
2020, through March 25, 2020.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Vertiflex Superion spacer. 
 
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 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 enrollee has spinal stenosis. The 
Vertiflex Superion spacer is considered experimental in nature, as more research is needed to show safety and 
efficacy. 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 Superion spacer.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for home infusion therapy (S9328) provided on January 9, 2020. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the home infusion therapy. You say that you would like reconsideration because 
this is not durable medical equipment and was not delivered to the member's home. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says procedure code S9328 is not a valid code for Medicare purposes. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate CPT code. 
 
We find that CPT code S9328 is not supported in the record. Specifically, per the Physician Fee Schedule, CPT 
code S9328 has a status indicator of I. This means that CPT code S9328 is not valid for Medicare purposes. 
Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the home infusion therapy have not 
been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for home infusion therapy (S9328) 
provided on January 9, 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 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 do 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 does document 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 acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Outpatient Therapies
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for the physical therapy services provided 
March 12, 2020 to May 18, 2020. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for the physical therapy services. You say that you received a bill 
for copay of over $600 of which you knew nothing about and feel this should be covered. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the claims were processed and the correct copayment applied per the Evidence of 
Coverage. 
 
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 $40 
copay for physical therapy and speech therapy service for outpatient rehabilitation services.  
 
You have been asked to pay $640 for the physical therapy services. Per the records, the copayment was applied 
to the following dates: 3/12/20, 3/18/20, 3/23/20, 3/27/20, 4/01/20, 4/06/20, 4/08/20, 4/13/20, 4/15/20, 4/20/20, 
4/22/20, 4/27/20, 4/29/20, 5/04/20, 5/11/20 and 5/18/20. The physical therapy services fall within the 
Outpatient rehabilitation services 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 physical therapy services provided March 12, 2020 to May 18, 2020.