Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an out-of-network consultation. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve an out-of-network consultation. You say that you were hospitalized and 
advised to see an OBGYN due to a mass in your ovaries. You say that you were advised to see this doctor and 
the referral was sent in April. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says in-network providers are available. 
 
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 
an out-of-network consultation.
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Lupron. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve these services. You say that you disagree with the denial. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the step therapy requirement is not met. 
 
Medicare covers Part B medications when they are reasonable and necessary but allows health plans to 
implement step therapy criteria. The Plan's contract indicates that it has implemented such criteria for certain Part B medications. 
 
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 metastatic 
adenocarcinoma of the prostate. He has not tried and failed the Plan's required drug, Eligard. The records do 
not show that the required drug would be contraindicated or less effective; therefore, Lupron is 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 Lupron.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you can safely 
receive the services you need in other settings. 
 
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 that there are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. While you have a need for 
physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documentation of a need for an intensive rehabilitation 
program. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for the eye exam (S0620), deluxe frame (V2025), anti-reflective coating 
(V2750), mirror coating (V2761) and progressive lens (V2781) provided on December 2, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the eye exam, deluxe frame, anti-reflective coating, mirror coating and 
progressive lens. You say that you would like reconsideration because you went to this provider as they are a 
convenient, reasonably priced retailer for many goods and services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says that you do not have out-of-network benefits. 
 
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. Specifically, the Plan has not forwarded the 2021 Evidence of Coverage as 
requested. We are unable to verify your benefits for the vision services at issue. It is the burden of the Health 
Plan to substantiate their denial with evidence. In this case, the denial has not been substantiated so we must 
find in your favor. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for the eye exam (S0620), deluxe frame 
(V2025), anti-reflective coating (V2750), mirror coating (V2761) and progressive lens (V2781) provided on 
December 2, 2021.  
 
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: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve two implant supported retainers (D6075 x2) and two 
implant supported porcelain/ceramic crowns (D6065 x2). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the implant supported retainers and implant supported porcelain/ceramic 
crowns. You say that you have had the implant surgery at your expense. You also say that the Plan should pay 
for the crown to be prepared and placed on the implants. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says these 
services are not a covered benefit under your plan. 
 
Medicare generally does not cover dental services. However, the Plan offers a dental benefit that exceeds 
Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plans 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 
implant supported retainers (D6075 x2) and two implant supported porcelain/ceramic crowns (D6065 x2).
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) device 
and related supplies. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a CPAP device and related supplies. You say that the items are medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says no medical records were submitted to support the 
request. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that for Medicare to consider coverage and payment 
for any item or service, the information submitted by the supplier or provider must corroborate the 
documentation in the beneficiary's medical documentation and confirm that Medicare coverage criteria have 
been met. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that there is insufficient 
information in the record to determine if Medicare rules for coverage of a continuous positive airway pressure 
(CPAP) device and related supplies. have been met. There were no medical records submitted in order to 
determine medical necessity. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a continuous 
positive airway pressure (CPAP) device and related supplies.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you can safely 
receive the services you need in other settings. 
 
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 that there are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. While you have a need for 
physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documentation of a need for an intensive rehabilitation 
program. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a second epidural steroid injection for the enrollee. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the injection. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says since the first injection did help the pain, a different approach following the 14 days was 
not justified. 
 
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 injection. Our reviewer says that the 
requested services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer 
found this second injection does not meet the LCD criteria, as the first injection provided 50% pain relief for 
two weeks. 
 
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 injection have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a second epidural steroid injection for the enrollee.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve foot orthotics. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve foot orthotics. You say that you will not be able to walk or complete her 
daily living activities without the inserts. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the orthopedic footwear 
policy states that inserts mus be attached to a leg brace, which is not the case here. 
 
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.
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 your family is concerned because you are in severe 
pain and have limited mobility and difficulty raising and lowering, and you only have your spouse to assist 
with tasks. You also say you were discharged to home with no information on therapy. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says based on Medicare guidelines and the information that they have about your condition; 
you do not meet all the requirements. The Plan also says that the requirements are that you need skilled nursing care or rehabilitation services every day, and that the services are reasonable and necessary for the treatment of 
your illness or injury. The Plan also says that you can receive the care you need in another setting, such as 
home, a long-term care facility, or other outpatient setting. 
 
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 care. Our reviewer says that daily 
skilled services are not necessary. Our physician reviewer found that you do not have daily skilled nursing 
needs that require the specialized skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional nurse. You do not 
have daily skilled therapy needs that require the specialized skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled 
professional therapist. You do not require daily skilled nursing and/or skilled therapy on an inpatient basis in a 
skilled nursing facility (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 care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve 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 you disagree with the denial. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the services are not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. 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 medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found you were admitted to the hospital 
for surgery to repair a hip fracture after a fall. You are now medically stable with no complex nursing or 
rehabilitation needs. You do not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While you have a need for physical 
and/or occupational therapy, there is no documentation of a need for an intensive rehabilitation program. 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: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve additional routine transportation (A0100). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve additional routine transportation. You say that the enrollee needs 
transportation to dialysis. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee has utilized the maximum 
number of transportation trips allowed per year. 
 
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 Plans coverage rules apply in this 
case. The Plan covers a maximum of 36 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 (A0100).
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 the enrollee is paralyzed and bed-
ridden. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Freestyle Libre sensor. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the Freestyle Libre sensor. You say that the sensor is necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the Medicare rules have not been met. The Plan states if insulin three times 
daily is restarted, a new request should be submitted. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that therapeutic CGMs are considered medically 
reasonable and necessary for enrollees with diabetes who use insulin with at least three daily administrations, 
require frequent self-adjustment of insulin dosage based on the blood glucose testing results and have had an 
in-person visit with their treating physician to assess adherence to their CGM regimen and diabetes treatment 
plan. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The documentation does not show that the enrollee is using insulin 
three (3) or more times per day or is using an insulin pump and attests that the insulin dosing requires frequent 
adjustment. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the Freestyle Libre sensor have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Freestyle Libre 
sensor.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the abdomen for the 
enrollee. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the MRI. You say that this is medically necessary, as the enrollee is a high 
risk pancreatic case. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that there is insufficient evidence that the 
requested service is reasonable and necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that MRIs 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 MRI. Our reviewer says that the 
requested MRI is medically reasonable and necessary. Our physician reviewer found ATM mutation is a 
genetic condition associated with marked increase in pancreatic and other cancers;  MRI of the abdomen using 
pancreatic protocol is the best procedure of choice to screen for this cancer and detect it while it could still be 
treatable.  The majority of pancreatic cancers occur in patients who are symptomatic and hence unsalvagable. 
 
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 MRI have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-approve 
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the abdomen for the enrollee.  
 
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 long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the admission to an LTACH is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the admission to an LTACH is not medically 
necessary. 
 
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 based on the documentation provided you only require short-term additional acute 
care services that can safely be administered at the current facility. There are no services at the LTACH that 
you require that are not already available and covered at the current 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 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: 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 requested admission to an IRF is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested admission to an IRF is not medically 
necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described 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 there is no need for physician supervision 3 times per week (at a minimum) for the 
ongoing management of any active or acute exacerbations of chronic medical conditions. Based upon the 
current level of function, the enrollee does not require an intensive, complex, multidisciplinary approach to 
daily therapy. Documentation does not support the need for a therapy program consisting of at least 3 hours of 
therapy per day at least 5 days per week with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. There are no 
documented rehabilitation nursing needs. While the enrollee may benefit from physical therapy and 
occupational therapy, the rehabilitation needs can be safely met in an alternate and lower intensity 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 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.