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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for subsequent nursing facility care visits provided on 
September 29, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for subsequent nursing facility care visits. You say that the records attached support 
the services provided. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that unauthorized, out-of-network care is 
not covered. 
 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 of the item(s)/service(s) at issue in this appeal is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan 
did not pre-approve the item(s)/service(s) at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay 
for the item(s)/service(s). Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for subsequent nursing 
facility care visits provided on September 29, 2022.
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 member's current medical condition requires an 
IRF admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the IRF services requested do not meet the 
requirements for approval. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the 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 supports a need for physical or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive 
rehabilitation services. 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. 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 inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Hospice
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the ambulance services provided on May 11, 2022. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for the ambulance services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says services 
should be billed under Original Medicare. 
 
Medicare rules say that Original Medicare, not the Plan, is responsible for all Medicare-covered non-hospice 
services. Medicare hospice pays for claims related to the terminal illness. The rules say that the Plan may direct 
the provider to bill Medicare directly for these services.  
 
The enrollee was under the Medicare hospice benefit for the dates of service at issue in this appeal. Therefore, 
we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the ambulance services provided on May 11, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an office visit provided on September 20, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for an office visit. You say that the records attached support the services provided. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that unauthorized, out-of-network care is not covered. 
 
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 of the item(s)/service(s) at issue in this appeal is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan did not pre-approve the item(s)/service(s) at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay 
for the item(s)/service(s). Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an office visit provided 
on September 20, 2022.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you would like reconsideration based on the records 
submitted. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the requirements for an IRF 
admission. 
 
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 the enrollee's nursing, medical, and rehabilitation needs does 
not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The 
enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational 
therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While the enrollee may have a need for physical 
therapy and/or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. 
Medically necessary care can be provided in a different level of care. There is not a reasonable expectation that 
the 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 an IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve OneTouch Ultra diabetic test strip (A4253). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve OneTouch Ultra. You say that the requested brand-name item is a medical 
necessity for the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says only the preferred brand products listed 
in the EOC are covered. 
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that plans may specify brands and manufacturers as 
preferred and charge lower cost-sharing for the preferred brands or may limit the DME to only those preferred 
brands and manufacturers. Plans must ensure that enrollees have access to all medically necessary (including 
non-preferred) DME products or brands. The rules also say that a health plan must disclose to its enrollees, in 
clear accurate terms, the benefits offered under a plan, including applicable conditions and limitations 
associated with receipt or use of benefits. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. According to the EOC, the requested brand is not a preferred brand 
for diabetic test strips. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve OneTouch Ultra 
diabetic test strip (A4253).
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve pain management services to be provided by an out-of-
network (OON) provider. 
 
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 services are available from network providers. 
 
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 referring provider 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 pain management services to be provided by 
an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for domiciliary or rest home visit provided on December 14, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for domiciliary or rest home visit. You say that it is the responsibility of the facility 
to obtain authorization. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that unauthorized, out-of-network care is 
not covered. 
 
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 of the item(s)/service(s) at issue in this appeal is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan 
did not pre-approve the item(s)/service(s) at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay 
for the item(s)/service(s). Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for domiciliary or rest home 
visit provided on December 14, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for subsequent nursing facility care provided on December 15, 
2022.  
You asked the Plan to pay for subsequent nursing facility care. You say that the enrollee was not under hospice 
care at the time of service. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says Original Medicare is responsible for 
payment 
 
Medicare rules say that Original Medicare, not the Plan, is responsible for all Medicare-covered non-hospice 
services. Original Medicare is responsible for payment for services until the first day of the month after the 
hospice election has been revoked or terminated. 
 
The enrollee ended Medicare Hospice benefits on December 14, 2022. The services in question were provided 
before the end of that month. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for subsequent nursing 
facility care provided on December 15, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for domiciliary or rest home visit provided on December 27, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for domiciliary or rest home visit. You say that the records attached support the 
services provided. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that unauthorized, out-of-network care is not 
covered. 
 
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 of the item(s)/service(s) at issue in this appeal is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan 
did not pre-approve the item(s)/service(s) at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay 
for the item(s)/service(s). Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for domiciliary or rest home 
visit provided on December 27, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an office visit provided on August 30, 2022, to November 
01, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for an office visit. You say that you were under the impression the contract was 
active with the Plan. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that unauthorized, out-of-network care is not 
covered. 
 
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 of the item(s)/service(s) at issue in this appeal is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan 
did not pre-approve the item(s)/service(s) at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay 
for the item(s)/service(s). Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an office visit provided 
on August 30, 2022, to November 01, 2022.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve maxillary partial denture  resin base (including, 
retentive/clasping materials, rests, and teeth) (D5211) and mandibular partial denture  resin base (including, 
retentive/clasping materials, rests, and teeth) (D5212). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the dental services. You say that you do not agree with the denial of the 
requested services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says your benefit for the requested item or service 
has already been exhausted. 
 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. This benefit includes the 
requested maxillary partial denture  resin base (including, retentive/clasping materials, rests, and teeth) 
(D5211) and mandibular partial denture  resin base (including, retentive/clasping materials, rests, and teeth) 
(D5212) but each is limited to one per 60 floating months. 
 
Though the Plan offers a dental benefit in excess of Medicare coverage, certain limitations apply. The record 
shows you received covered D5211 and D5212 on February 4, 2022. Therefore, these benefits were exhausted 
as of February 4, 2022. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve maxillary partial 
denture  resin base (including, retentive/clasping materials, rests, and teeth) (D5211) and mandibular partial 
denture  resin base (including, retentive/clasping materials, rests, and teeth) (D5212).
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 an IRF admission is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the IRF admission 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 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 supports a need for physical or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive 
rehabilitation services. 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. 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 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 the enrollee requires acute inpatient rehabilitation 
that cannot be provided at a lower level of care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the member does 
not meet the criteria for an IRF admission. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the 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 supports a need for physical or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive 
rehabilitation services. 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. 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 inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for domiciliary or rest home visit provided on October 26, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for domiciliary or rest home visit. You say that it is the responsibility of the facility 
to obtain authorization. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that unauthorized, out-of-network care is 
not covered. 
 
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 of the item(s)/service(s) at issue in this appeal is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan 
did not pre-approve the item(s)/service(s) at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay 
for the item(s)/service(s). Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for domiciliary or rest home 
visit provided on October 26, 2021.
Appeal type: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the ambulance services provided on January 26, 2022. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for the ambulance services. You say that the enrollee was not under hospice care at 
the time of transport. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says Original Medicare is responsible for 
payment. 
 
Medicare rules say that Original Medicare, not the Plan, is responsible for all Medicare-covered non-hospice 
services. Medicare hospice pays for claims related to the terminal illness. The rules say that the Plan may direct 
the provider to bill Medicare directly for these services.  
 
The enrollee was under the Medicare hospice benefit for the dates of service at issue in this appeal. Therefore, 
we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the ambulance services provided on January 26, 2022.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve home-delivered prepared meal billed as procedure code 
S5170. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve procedure code S5170. You say that the services are necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the billed code is invalid 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 procedure code. 
 
We find that procedure code S5170 has a Status Indicator of I on the Physician Fee Schedule. This means that 
procedure code S5170 is not valid for Medicare purposes. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of procedure code S5170 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve home-delivered prepared meal billed as procedure code S5170.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a home ventilator. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a home ventilator. You say that a home ventilator is medically necessary for 
the patient because she did not tolerate positive airway pressure. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says a 
home ventilator is not medically necessary in this case as the patient's needs can be met with a bilevel positive 
airway pressure (BiPAP) device with average volume-assured pressure support (AVAPS). 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that ventilators may be covered when they are medically 
necessary for patients who have neuromuscular disease, thoracic restrictive diseases, and chronic respiratory 
failure due to COPD. 
 
 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 home ventilator. Our reviewer says 
that a home ventilator is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found this patient has moderate 
COPD, bronchiectasis, and peripheral lung opacities consistent with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Recent 
pulmonary function testing showed an forced expiratory volume of 54% of predicted, which is not severe 
enough to expect chronic CO2 retention on the basis of COPD.  There is no documentation of chronic CO2 
retention with an arterial blood gas done while stable.  Even if the patient did have chronic CO2 retention, 
BiPAP with AVAPS would likely meet the patient's needs for nocturnal ventilatory support.  
 
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 home ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a home ventilator.