Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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 cannot be adequately cared 
for in her current condition at a lower level of care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's 
needs are being met in the current acute 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 physician 
reviewer found that the enrollee was admitted to the acute care hospital with coronary artery disease requiring 
surgery. Her hospital course was complicated by acute kidney failure, acute respiratory failure, right radial 
artery thrombus, and atrial fibrillation. She required oxygen supplementation, dialysis, and heparin. The 
enrollee appears to be more stable and improving and should only require short-term additional acute care 
services that can be safely completed at the current facility. There are no services at the LTACH that she 
requires that are not already available and covered at the current facility. Transfer to LTACH is not medically 
necessary as it would not be clinically advantageous. 
 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Entyvio (J3380) to be provided by an out-of-network 
(OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Entyvio. You say that this injection service is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says there are multiple in-network providers available to provide the injections 
you need. 
 
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 
Entyvio (J3380) to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a therapeutic continuous glucose monitor (CGM). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a therapeutic CGM. You say that the requested CGM is medically 
reasonable and necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the criteria for coverage have not been 
met. 
 
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 indicates that the enrollee does not use insulin 
with at least three daily injections. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of a therapeutic CGM have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a 
therapeutic continuous glucose monitor (CGM).
Appeal type: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve additional mileage for your routine transportation. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve additional miles. You say that you need a referral to an ophthalmologist. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says your benefit only allows 50 miles. 
 
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.  
 
 
 Routine transportation over 50 miles was requested. We looked at your request, the records in the case file, and 
the rules. Your plan only covers trips for up to 50 miles. Based on this information, we decided that the Plans 
rules for coverage of routine transportation have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve additional mileage for your routine transportation.
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 IRF care is medically necessary as you need physical 
therapy. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says IRF care is not medically necessary and your continued 
acute hospital stay was offered until medically stable. 
 
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 while you have a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no 
documentation of a need for an intensive rehabilitation program such as 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve radiofrequency ablation (RFA) to the sacroiliac (SI) 
joint. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve RFA to the SI joint. 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 RFA to the SI joint. Our reviewer says 
that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found this procedure is considered experimental/investigational because of the wide 
variation in efficacy reported in the literature. Therefore, the request is considered 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 RFA to the SI joint have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve radiofrequency ablation (RFA) to the sacroiliac (SI) joint.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for the anesthesia for X-ray on spine and spinal cord (01936) provided on 
September 20, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the anesthesia for X-ray on spine and spinal cord. You say that per review of the 
claim submitted, this code has been billed correctly. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that this 
service does not meet the coverage requirements in the applicable Local Coverage Determination (LCD) or 
National Coverage Determination (NCD). 
 
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. In this case, the Plan has denied coverage based on an apparent LCD or NCD 
that indicates the criteria for payment was not met. However, the Plan has not made reasonable and diligent 
efforts to forward the appropriate LCD or NCD that is responsible for denying payment. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan has to pay for the anesthesia for X-ray on spine and spinal cord (01936) provided on September 
20, 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: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for the MRI provided on July 5, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for the MRI. You say that this charge should be covered. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the copayment applied 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 $195 
copayment for Medicare covered diagnostic radiology services (not including x-rays).  
 
You have been asked to pay $139.36 which is less than the standard $195 copayment for MRIs. MRI falls 
within the Outpatient diagnostic tests and therapeutic services and supplies 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 MRI provided on July 5, 2021.
Appeal type: Testing
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for the endoscopy provided on January 31, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for the endoscopy. You say that you have had an endoscopy in the 
past and never had to pay for it before, so you don't know why you must pay for it now. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the copayment applied 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 $100 
copayment per day for other outpatient procedures and services, including, but not limited to, diagnostic and 
therapeutic endoscopy, and outpatient surgery performed in an outpatient hospital or ambulatory surgical 
center.  
 
 You have been asked to pay $100 copayment for an endoscopy. Endoscopy falls within the Outpatient surgery, 
including services provided at hospital outpatient facilities and ambulatory surgical centers 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 endoscopy provided on January 31, 2022.
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Actemra. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Actemra. 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. 
 
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 Actemra. Our reviewer says that the 
services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the record does not indicate that the 
enrollee has a contraindication to, or would have an adverse effect from the plan's preferred step one 
alternative. The elements of the coverage criteria are not satisfied. The requested service cannot be 
recommended. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Actemra have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Actemra.
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Darzalex Faspro. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Darzalex Faspro. 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. 
 
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 Darzalex Faspro. Our reviewer says 
that the services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the record does not indicate that 
the enrollee has a contraindication to, or would have an adverse effect from the plan's preferred step one 
alternative. The elements of the coverage criteria are not satisfied. The requested service cannot be 
recommended. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Darzalex Faspro have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve Darzalex Faspro.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Freestyle Libre 2 sensor 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the Freestyle Libre 2 sensor. You say that the item is medically necessary. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the member does not use insulin. 
 
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 indicates that the enrollee does not use insulin 
with at least three daily injections. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the Freestyle Libre 2 sensor have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-
approve the Freestyle Libre 2 sensor
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
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 an irregular and rapid 
heartbeat. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request is not medically necessary at this time. The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that an implantable loop recorder is 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 that there is no documentation provided to suggest a history of unexplained syncope, 
cryptogenic stroke or any other apparent indication for an implantable loop recorder (ILR).  In summary, there 
is insufficient documentation to support the medical necessity for insertion of an ILR 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: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Otezla. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Otezla. You say that this request is for continuation of therapy. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says Otezla to be administered at home is not covered under the Part B benefit. 
 
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 Otezla.  
 
 
 Benefits for Otezla may be available under Medicare Part D. Contact the Plan that administers Part D benefits 
for further information concerning any benefits and appeal rights.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the coinsurance for the CPAP supplies provided on January 
14, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the coinsurance for CPAP supplies. You say that you were charged the wrong 
amount and you shouldn't owe $34.33. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the coinsurance applied 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 20% 
coinsurance of the total cost for Medicare covered durable medical equipment and supplies.  
 
 
 
 
 You have been asked to pay $34.33 which is 20% of the allowed amount for the CPAP supplies. The allowed 
amount is $171.67(20% x $171.67 = $34.33). CPAP supplies fall within the Durable medical equipment 
(DME) and related supplies 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 coinsurance for the CPAP 
supplies provided on January 14, 2022.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve continuous glucose monitor (CGM) supplies. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve CGM supplies. 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. 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 indicates that you do not use insulin with at least 
three daily injections. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of CGM supplies 
have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve continuous glucose 
monitor (CGM) supplies.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the CT scan (70450) provided on January 1, 2022. 
  You asked the Plan to pay for the CT scan (70450). You say that the enrollee had multiple exams on this date 
of service and the reports support the level of service. You say that the claim should be reconsidered for 
processing. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an appropriate modifier was not billed with this code 
edit. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate CPT code. In this case, we have confirmed that code 70450 
is a column II code to column I code 70496. This claim has not been billed with an appropriate modifier to 
bypass the edit. Based on the claim submitted, Medicare billing criteria have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the CT scan (70450) provided on January 1, 2022.
Appeal type: Outpatient Therapies
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve office visits to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) 
provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve office visits to be provided by an OON provider. You say that the services 
are necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there are in-network providers that are able to 
provide these services. Therefore, coverage criteria have not been met. 
 
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 
office visits to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.