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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for office visit provided on October 20, 2021, by an out-of-
network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for office visit. You say that you are appealing the claim payment denial. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the services were provided out-of-network and were not approved in 
advanced. 
 
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 office visit provided on October 20, 2021, by an 
out-of-network (OON) provider.
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. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says it is not 
safe to leave the hospital currently and the enrollee receiving the appropriately treated care in the current 
hospital. 
 
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 the medical record does not indicate that the enrollee requires services that cannot be 
appropriately treated in the current hospital but that would be available at the LTACH 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: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve cataract surgery to be provided by an out-of-network 
(OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve cataract surgery. You say that you want to see the requested provider. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested provider in out-of-network. There are providers available 
in-network that can provide this service. 
 
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 
cataract surgery to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve additional mileage for routine transportation (A0170). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve additional mileage for routine transportation. You say that you need to get 
to your medical appointment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says your benefit only allows 72 one-way 
trips with each one-way trip not exceeding 50 miles of driving distance. 
 
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 routine transportation when the driving distance for a one-way trip is within 50 miles.  
 
   
We looked at your request, the records in the case file, and the rules. Based on this information, we decided 
that the Plans rules for coverage of routine transportation have not been met. Specifically, the provider is 
located 87 miles away from your residence. The Plan only covers distances up to 50 miles. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve additional mileage for routine transportation (A0170).
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a CardioMEMS device. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the requested services. You say that the enrollee's heart failure continues to 
be a challenge. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the clinical effectiveness has not been 
demonstrated. 
 
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 requested services. Our physician 
reviewer found that the enrollee has recurrent congestive heart failure (CHF). Approval for CardioMEMS 
pulmonary pressure sensor implantation to help improve fluid management and symptoms was requested. The 
clinical study on which a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval was based showed improved clinical 
outcomes and decreased hospitalizations in patients in whom the CardioMEMS system was implanted, 
reflecting a patient population with preserved ejection fraction and was somewhat limited in scope. Subsequent 
follow-up studies remain encouraging and suggest an improvement in heart failure symptoms with the use of 
the device. In addition, published expert opinion in the cardiology literature is supportive of the clinical 
usefulness of CardioMEMS.   Nonetheless, there remains a dearth of randomized, blinded clinical studies examining long-term clinical 
outcomes establishing the value of CardioMEMS in patient management. As a result, at this time the 
CardioMEMS system would not be considered medically appropriate and necessary in this enrollees clinical 
management. 
 
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 requested services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve a CardioMEMS device.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a power wheelchair (K0861) and features/accessories. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a power wheelchair and accessories.. You say that the items are medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says Medicare does not cover durable medical equipment 
(DME) in a skilled nursing facility (SNF). 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that for equipment to be covered, it must be appropriate 
and needed for use inside the home. Medicare does not consider a SNF or a hospital to be a home.  
 
Records show that a power wheelchair and accessories. is being requested for use in a SNF or hospital. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a power wheelchair (K0861) and 
features/accessories.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an Intracept intraosseous ablation of the basivertebral 
nerve. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the requested services. You say that the enrollee has tried and failed 
conservative treatment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request does not meet the requirements 
for approval. 
 
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 requested services. Our physician 
reviewer found that Intracept procedure is experimental for back pain. More research is needed to show its 
safety and efficacy in this situation. Therefore, the request is not 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 the requested services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve an Intracept intraosseous ablation of the basivertebral nerve.
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. You say that you need to be in an environment where your 
medical issues can be closely monitored. You say that you were fully independent before your accident and 
have not had a lot of opportunities to work on activities of daily living. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says an IRF admission is not medically necessary, and your needs can be met at an alternate level of care. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described 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 the complexity of your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not require 
an acute hospital stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. While you may benefit from 
multiple therapies you do not require or can tolerate the therapy on an intensive IRF level. 
 
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: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for lab services provided on August 8, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the lab services. You say that these services were medically necessary and 
should be paid. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you billed with an incorrect place of service on the 
claim. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that, for lab services, the POS code must reflect the 
location in which the sample was taken. POS code 81 is used to describe samples taken by the laboratory 
directly. 
 
 We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of the lab services have not been met. Specifically, this claim was billed with the laboratory POS 
code. The records do not support that the sample was taken in a laboratory setting. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pay for lab services provided on August 8, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the cost sharing for an office visit, a blood glucose level, a 
urinalysis, and the measurement of glycosylated hemoglobin provided on March 28, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the cost sharing for an office visit, a blood glucose level, a urinalysis, and the 
measurement of glycosylated hemoglobin. You say that you were told the provider was in-network. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says this cost sharing was charged 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 $55 
copayment for out-of-network PCP services. Your contract with the Plan also clearly says that you must pay 
50% coinsurance for each out-of-network laboratory service. You have been asked to pay $55 for an office visit. This item/service falls within the primary care physician 
services benefit category. You have also been asked to pay $1.96 for a blood glucose level, $1.12 for a 
urinalysis, and $4.85 for the measurement of glycosylated hemoglobin. These items/services fall within the  
laboratory services benefit category. The amount you owe is $62.93 ($55 + $1.96 +$1.12 + $4.85 = $62.93). 
This means that you have been asked to pay the correct amount based on your contract with the Plan. This cost 
sharing is a contractual obligation you agreed to pay when you enrolled in the Plan. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to waive the cost sharing for an office visit, a blood glucose level, a urinalysis, and the 
measurement of glycosylated hemoglobin provided on March 28, 2022.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an implantable loop recorder. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the requested services. You say that the enrollee has a history of 
hyperlipidemia and atrial fibrillation. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee has not had 
recent syncope and no history of prior stroke. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that electrocardiographic services are only covered under 
certain medical indications.  
 
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 requested services. Our physician 
reviewer found there is no documentation provided to suggest a history of unexplained syncope, cryptogenic 
stroke or any other apparent indication for an implantable cardiac monitor (ICM). The enrollee has a history of 
atrial fibrillation. There is insufficient documentation to support the medical necessity for insertion of an ICM 
in this enrollees clinical management. 
 
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 requested services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve an implantable loop recorder.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that you need help with your foot and 
medication for the infection in your leg. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an LTACH admission is 
not medically necessary, and your needs can be met at an alternate level of care. 
 
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 that you are improving but still require acute care services before transitioning to a 
lower level of care. The medical records do not indicate that you require services that you are not currently 
receiving but that would be available at the LTACH 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 LTACH services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an advanced foot with ankle feature (L5968, L5981). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve an advanced foot with ankle feature. 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 a microprocessor controlled ankle foot system 
(L5973), energy storing foot (L5976), dynamic response foot with multi-axial ankle (L5979), flex foot system 
(L5980), flex-walk system or equal (L5981), or shank foot system with vertical loading pylon (L5987) is 
covered for beneficiaries whose functional level is 3 or 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 an advanced foot with ankle feature. 
Our reviewer says that the services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee 
requires a transtibial prothesis for mobility and accomplishing daily activities. However, the documentation 
provided does not support the requested transtibial prosthesis with K3 components. There is insufficient 
clinical documentation regarding the enrollees current level of mobility and function and why he requires a 
prosthesis with K3 components when he is requesting a power wheelchair for mobility. A K3 level ambulator 
should not require a power wheelchair for mobility. It is also unclear if the enrollee can be a K3 level ambulator and if the volume of his residual limb has stabilized with a medical history of end stage renal 
disease. Therefore, the requested transtibial prosthesis with K3 components, specifically a K3 foot/ankle, is not 
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 an advanced foot with ankle feature have not been met. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an advanced foot with ankle feature (L5968, L5981).
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 enrollee's past medical history is 
significant for needing a transfer to a LTACH. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says it is not safe to 
transfer to a LTACH at this time and the enrollee is receiving the care needed in the current hospital. 
 
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 the medical record does not indicate that the enrollee requires services that cannot be 
appropriately treated in the current hospital but that would be available at the LTACH 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 LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the enrollee would be best treated under 
the oversight of a medical doctor coupled with acute care level clinical interventions. You say that the enrollee 
is too complex for a skilled nursing facility and poses a significant risk for yet another re admission. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says an LTACH admission is not medically necessary, and the enrollee can 
receive the care they need in the current hospital setting. 
 
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 that the enrollee is improving but still requires acute care services before 
transitioning to a lower level of care. The medical records do not indicate that the enrollee requires services that 
she is not currently receiving but that would be available at the LTACH 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 LTACH services.
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. You say that the enrollee would like reconsideration because the 
services are medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an IRF admission is not 
medically necessary, and the enrollee can safely receive the services they 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 the enrollees medical problems are stable and there are no complex nursing or 
rehabilitation needs. While the medical record supports a need for physical or occupational therapy, there is no 
documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different 
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 IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services.