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 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, you do 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. While you 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.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve 44 home health skilled nursing visits. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve 44 home health skilled nursing visits. 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 home health care services may be covered if it is 
medically necessary for the enrollee to receive skilled nursing or therapy. A doctor must certify the need for 
home health care services.  
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 44 home health skilled nursing visits. 
Our reviewer says that the services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the records do 
not show that skilled nursing services are required to effectively provide treatment, care, and/or services in 
order to improve your condition, or to establish/perform a maintenance program to maintain your condition 
and/or prevent deterioration. Although short-term extension of nursing visits at the home appears to be 
reasonable, there was insufficient support made for an extension beyond the approved 16 additional sessions. 
Therefore, this request for the remaining 44 sessions of home nursing care will be considered not required. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of 44 home health skilled nursing visits have not been met. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan does not have to pre-approve 44 home health skilled nursing visits.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Navage Nasal Irrigation System. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a Navage Nasal Irrigation System. You say that you would like the Plan to 
reconsider their denial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says a Navage Nasal Irrigation System is not 
covered by Medicare or the Plan. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that for equipment to be covered, it must primarily serve a 
medical purpose.   
 
The item at issue in this appeal does not serve a purpose that is primarily medical in nature. This item is 
available to the general public and would be helpful even to those who are not sick or injured. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Navage Nasal Irrigation System.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care after April 2, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care after April 2, 2022. You say that the continued admission to a 
SNF is medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the continued admission to a SNF is 
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 care after April 2, 2022. Our 
reviewer says that daily skilled services are not necessary. Our physician reviewer found 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 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 after April 2, 2022, have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care after April 2, 2022.
Appeal type: Outpatient Mental Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the subsequent nursing facility care, per day (99309) 
rendered by the out-of-network (OON) provider on November 1, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for this service. You say that you are requesting a reconsideration of the Plan's 
denial for payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the service was rendered by an out of network 
provider, without prior authorization. 
 
Medicare rules say that plans can require enrollees to get care from network providers. The contract with the 
Plan says that the Plan has to pay for care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving emergencies, 
out of area urgent care and pre-approved care. 
 
The provider in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan had network providers available 
who could have provided the service at issue in this appeal. The Plan did not pre-approve the service at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay for this service. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pay for the subsequent nursing facility care, per day (99309) rendered by the out-of-network 
(OON) provider on November 1, 2021.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the determination of refractive state (92015) provided 
November 17, 2021. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for the eye refraction. You say that you don't understand why this is not covered 
under your vision benefits. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this service is not covered because the 
eye refraction was not performed by a participating routine vision provider. 
 
Medicare generally does not cover routine vision and eyewear services. However, the Plan offers a routine 
vision and eyewear benefit that exceeds Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plan's coverage rules apply in 
this case. The Plan covers these services when you use one of the Plan's third-party vision vendor's "select" 
providers. 
 
We looked at the file and the Plan's rules. The eye refraction is a routine vision service. The provider who 
rendered this service is not a participating select provider with the Plans third-party routine vision vendor. 
Based on this information, we decided that the Plan's rules for coverage of the eye refraction have not been 
met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the determination of refractive state (92015) 
provided November 17, 2021.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for office visits provided on March 9, 2021, 
and November 1, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for the office visits. You say that the services should be covered. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the cost-sharing applied correctly based on the services provided. 
 
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 $45 
copayment for Physician/Practitioner services, including doctors office visits.  
 
 
  You have been asked to pay a $90 copayment for two office visits ($ 45 x 2 = $90). 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 office visits provided on March 9, 2021, and November 1, 2021.
Appeal type: ER
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for the emergency room visit provided on 
December 14, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment. You say that you are requesting a reconsideration of the Plan's 
denial for payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the copayment has been applied correctly to 
the service provided. 
 
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 $90 
copayment for Medicare-covered emergency room visits.  
 
You have been asked to pay a $90 copayment for the Medicare-covered emergency room visit provided. 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 emergency room visit provided on 
December 14, 2021.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the domiciliary or rest home visit for the evaluation and 
management of an established patient (99337) rendered by the out-of-network (OON) provider on December 7, 
2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for this service. You say that you are requesting a reconsideration of the Plan's 
denial for payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the service was rendered by an out of network 
provider, without prior authorization. 
 
Medicare rules say that plans can require enrollees to get care from network providers. The contract with the 
Plan says that the Plan has to pay for care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving emergencies, 
out of area urgent care and pre-approved care. 
 
 The provider in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan had network providers available 
who could have provided the service at issue in this appeal. The Plan did not pre-approve the service at issue. 
We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay for this service. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pay for the domiciliary or rest home visit for the evaluation and management of an established 
patient (99337) rendered by the out-of-network (OON) provider on December 7, 2021.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a portable ventilator. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a portable ventilator. You say that the item is necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says based on the documentation provided, coverage criteria has not been met. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 
(CMS) National Coverage Determinations Manual (CMS Pub. 100-03) in Chapter 1, Part 4, Section 280.1 
stipulates that ventilators (E0465, E0466, and E0467) are 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 a portable ventilator. Our reviewer says 
that the item is medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found a home ventilator is not medically 
necessary. You do not have a diagnosis for which Medicare covers a home ventilator. You are reportedly using 
bilevel positive airway pressure (bipap) at home, but no compliance data are provided. Apparently, you have 
not been tried on bipap with average volume-assured pressure support (AVAPS) at home. There is no 
documentation of bipap failure at home. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of a portable ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve a portable ventilator.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve radiofrequency ablation. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve radiofrequency ablation. You say that the services are necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says medical necessity has not been established. Therefore, coverage criteria 
have not been met. 
 
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 radiofrequency ablation. Our reviewer 
says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found there is no compelling rationale presented or extenuating circumstances noted to 
support the medical necessity of this request as an exception. Therefore, the requested radiofrequency ablation 
of the sacroiliac joint, in this case, is not medically reasonable or 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 radiofrequency ablation have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve radiofrequency ablation.
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, you do 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. While you 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.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a portable ventilator. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a portable ventilator. 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 follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 
(CMS) National Coverage Determinations Manual (CMS Pub. 100-03) in Chapter 1, Part 4, Section 280.1 
stipulates that ventilators (E0465, E0466, and E0467) are 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 a portable ventilator. Our reviewer says 
that the item is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found you do not have a diagnosis for which 
Medicare covers a home ventilator. You did well on bilevel positive airway pressure (bipap) in the hospital and 
may benefit from bipap during sleep at home. The average volume-assured pressure support (AVAPS) mode of 
support can be provided via bipap. Medicare does not cover a home ventilator when used as bipap. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of a portable ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve a portable ventilator.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an oncology visit, computed tomography (CT) scans, and lab 
testing provided on October 13, 2021, by an out-of-network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for an oncology visit, computed tomography (CT) scans, and lab testing. You say 
that the services were medically necessary and should be covered by the Plan. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says the services were provided out-of-network and 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 had network providers 
available who could have provided the items/services at issue in this appeal. 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 an oncology visit, computed tomography (CT) 
scans, and lab testing provided on October 13, 2021, by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for a specialist office visit provided on January 
14, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for the specialist office visit. You say that the services should be 
covered as you disagree with the charges. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the cost-sharing applied 
correctly based on the services provided. 
 
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 $45 
copayment for Physician/Practitioner services, including doctors office visits.  
 
 
  You have been asked to pay a $45 copayment for the specialist office visit. 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 specialist office visit provided on January 14, 2022.
Appeal type: Outpatient Therapies
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for the physical therapy visit provided on 
November 12, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for the physical therapy visit. You say that you cannot afford these 
charges. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the copayment amount charged is correct. 
 
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 $35 
copayment for Medicare-covered therapy visits.  
 
 
 
 You have been asked to pay a $35 copayment for the physical therapy visit. Physical therapy visits 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 visit provided on November 12, 2021.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Oxycod/apap. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Oxycod/apap. You say that the medication is necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the enrollee's plan does not have a Medicare Part D benefit, or a separate pharmacy 
benefit managed by the plan, therefore self-administered drugs do not meet the criteria for 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 Oxycod/apap.  
 
Benefits for Oxycod/apap may be available under Medicare Part D. Contact the Plan that administers Part D 
benefits for further information concerning any benefits and appeal rights.