Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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 IRF admission is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says based on Medicare guidelines, the IRF services you are requesting 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 that a hip fracture repair does not require intensive rehabilitation. The enrollee does 
not require intensive rehabilitation or transfer to 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 IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for lab services provided on June 22, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for lab services. You say that you were unaware that the lab was out-of-network, and 
feel you should not have to pay. 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 lab services provided on 
June 22, 2022.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an inpatient hospital stay provided on July 16, 2022, to July 
18, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for an inpatient hospital stay. You say that we depend on the facility staff to verify 
eligibility and 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 an inpatient hospital stay 
provided on July 16, 2022, to July 18, 2022.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a comprehensive oral evaluation (D0150) provided on 
October 14, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the dental services. You say that you have a dental plan. You also say that you 
found this dentist late. 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. 
 
 
  Though the Plan offers a dental benefit in excess of Medicare coverage, certain limitations apply. The record 
shows your benefit for the requested item or service was exhausted on date of service November 19, 2021. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a comprehensive oral evaluation (D0150) 
provided on October 14, 2022.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the dental services on August 25, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the dental services. You say that you would like to request reconsideration of the 
denied claim. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the service is not a covered benefit. 
 
Medicare generally does not cover dental services. However, the Plan offers a dental benefit that exceeds 
Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plans coverage rules apply in this case. 
 
Though the Plan offers a dental benefit in excess of Medicare coverage, the requested items or services are not 
among those covered under this benefit. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the dental 
services on August 25, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve physical therapy services to be provided by an out-of-
network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve physical therapy services. You say that the requested services are a medical 
necessity for you. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says rules for coverage for OON care 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. The requested services are not urgent or 
unforeseen. 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 physical therapy services to be provided by an OON 
provider.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a home ventilator (E0466). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a home ventilator. You say that the ventilator will provide positive pressure 
ventilatory support, guaranteeing a set tidal volume. If the enrollee can build up her stamina with decreased 
shortness of breath, she can decrease her risk of respiratory exacerbation. It is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the request for a home mechanical ventilator set in AC mode with very low 
tidal volumes that could be delivered by BiPAP is not covered. 
 
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 the service is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has COPD and 
pulmonary fibrosis. The Life2000 is not a true ventilator because it is not capable of providing full ventilatory 
support. There is inadequate evidence of safety and efficacy in the treatment of COPD or pulmonary fibrosis. 
 
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 (E0466).
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 99232 billed for date of service November 9, 
2021. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 99232. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the number 
of units billed exceeds the maximum allowed. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that submitted claims in which the unit of service 
exceeds the MUE value cannot be paid when the MAI value is 3, unless there is evidence justifying the excess 
units.  
 
In this case, the MUE for CPT code 99232 is 1. The MAI value for this code is 3. You billed 3 units of this 
code, exceeding the MUE. You did not provide all the required evidence showing that the excess units were 
actually provided were correctly coded, and were medically necessary. Based on this information, we decided 
that Medicare rules for coverage of procedure code 99232 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 99232 billed for date of service November 9, 2021.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an Intracept procedure (64628). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve an Intracept procedure. You say that the science supporting this treatment is 
far greater than many other procedures that the enrollee's plan will provide coverage for. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the requested service is not medically necessary. 
 
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 an Intracept procedure. Our reviewer 
says that the requested Intracept procedure is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. 
Our physician reviewer found the requested service is considered experimental and investigational. Therefore, 
the reviewer found that the requested Intracept procedure 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 an Intracept procedure have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve an Intracept procedure (64628).
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 83789 billed for date of service August 8, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the billed services. You say that the code was not processed at its entirety. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says this testing is not separately billed. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers performing validity testing on urine 
specimens utilized for drug testing should not separately bill the validity testing. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. We find that the testing described by code 83789 is considered 
specimen validity testing which is not separately payable. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare 
rules for coverage of the billed services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pay for procedure code 83789 billed for date of service August 8, 2022.
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 rehab is crucial for you to be able to go home where 
you live alone. You say without physical and occupational therapy, you will not be able to do normal everyday 
activities. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says based on Medicare guidelines, 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 that your 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.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a consultation with an otolaryngologist (ENT) at a 
tertiary facility. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve the physician service. You say that your primary care physician referred you 
to a specialist. You say that you saw their nurse and physician assistant. You say that you could not see the 
actual specialist until February 2023. You say that you feel they did not diagnose you correctly. You also say 
that you would like to see someone else. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested service can 
be provided in network. 
 
Medicare rules generally allow plans to restrict enrollees to using plan providers as long as there are plan 
providers available to meet enrollees needs. Your contract with the Plan says that, with few exceptions, you 
must use contract providers for care.  
 
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 physician service. Our reviewer 
says that the requested service at a tertiary facility is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the 
documentation indicates that the plan has providers that are capable, accessible, and available to provide the 
care that you require. Therefore, the reviewer found that the requested service at a tertiary facility 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 physician service have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve a consultation with an otolaryngologist (ENT) at a tertiary facility.
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 the documentation shows that the enrollee has complex functional deficits and active 
medical comorbidities however skilled therapy documentation does not show that the enrollee would tolerate 
15 hours of therapy per week as the enrollee refused therapy sessions and the recommendation by evaluating 
therapists is skilled nursing 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 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: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Opzelura cream. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Opzelura. You say that the enrollee needs this drug. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the requested drug is considered self-administered. The Plan says self-administered 
drugs are covered under a Medicare Part D prescription drug plan. The Plan also says the requested drug is not 
covered under Medicare Part B. 
 
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 Opzelura cream.  
 Benefits for Opzelura 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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an excision of excessive skin and subcutaneous tissue of 
the hip (15834) and of the buttock (15835). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve an excision of excessive skin and subcutaneous tissue. You say that the 
requested services are a medical necessity for you. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested 
services are cosmetic in nature. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that cosmetic procedures and related services are not 
covered. Only services that are reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis or treatment of illness or injury are 
coverable.   
 
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 excision of excessive skin and 
subcutaneous tissue. Our reviewer says that the requested services are not medically reasonable and necessary 
in this case. Our reviewer found that you underwent bariatric surgery and have had massive weight loss. The 
record does not indicate that you have intertrigo refractory to conservative therapy, or that you have functional 
limitations. The record provided does not establish the medical necessity and reasonableness of the requested 
services. 
 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 excision of excessive skin and subcutaneous tissue have not been met. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an excision of excessive skin and 
subcutaneous tissue of the hip (15834) and of the buttock (15835).
Appeal type: Other
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve epidural steroid injections (ESI). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve epidural steroid injections. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this 
is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that a repeat ESI, when the first injection directly and 
significantly provided improvement of the condition being treated, may be considered medically reasonable 
and necessary when the medical record documents at least 50% of sustained improvement in pain relief and/or 
improvement in function measured from baseline using same scale for at least three months. 
 
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 epidural steroid injections. Our 
reviewer says that the requested ESIs are not medically reasonable and necessary. Our physician reviewer 
found that the LCD criteria requires 50% pain relief for 3 months. This has not been achieved yet, and 
therefore, the requested injections are not medically reasonable and 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 epidural steroid injections have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve epidural steroid injections (ESI).
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 the documentation does not show any acute complex functional impairments or 
active medical issues thus the complexity of the enrollee's documented nursing, medical and rehabilitation 
needs would not be expected to require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to 
rehabilitation 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 pay for inpatient hospital consultation provided on April 09, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for inpatient hospital consultation. You say that you are requesting reconsideration. 
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 inpatient hospital 
consultation provided on April 09, 2022.