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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for practitioner service provided on May 26, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for telehealth visit. You say that you understood not all conditions 
can be adequately evaluated and treated through a virtual visit and may require an in-person medical 
evaluation. 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 $10 
copayment for each covered telehealth visit.  
 
You have been asked to pay $10 copayment for telehealth visit. This item/service falls within the covered 
telehealth visit 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 practitioner service 
provided on May 26, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for office visit services provided on February 15, 2022, by an 
out-of-network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for office visit services. 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 services provided on February 15, 
2022, by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve incontinence supplies (wash, wipes, swaps, disposable 
under pads, non-sterile gloves). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve incontinence supplies. You say that this is necessary to assist in daily needs. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan covers all items that Medicare covers. Medicare rules state that incontinence supplies are not covered 
because they are hygienic items that are non-reusable.  
 
While incontinence supplies may be appropriate in this case, neither the Plan nor Medicare offers coverage of 
these items. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve incontinence supplies (wash, 
wipes, swaps, disposable under pads, non-sterile gloves).
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for physician's services provided on March 9, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for physician's services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says Medicare 
denies a claim for untimely filing if the receipt date applied to the claim exceeds 12 months or 1 calendar year 
from the date the services were furnished. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that claims for services furnished on or after January 1, 2010, 
must be filed no later than one calendar year after the date of service. 
 
The record shows that a claim for physician's services was not filed until March 15, 2022. This means that 
more than one calendar year from the date of service had passed before a claim was filed. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for physician's services provided on March 9, 2021.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for diagnostic testing provided on January 13, 2022, by an OON 
provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for diagnostic testing. You say to please review the medical records for reference 
and reconsider for payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the out-of-network services were not 
authorized. 
 
 
 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 diagnostic testing provided on January 13, 2022, 
by an OON provider.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the genetic testing provided on January 26, 2022, billed with 
codes 81206, 81210, 81235, 81272, 81275, 81276, 81292, 81295, 81298, 81301, 81311, and 81317. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the genetic testing billed. You say that the testing was medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says this testing should be billed with a single panel code. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that if one laboratory procedure evaluates multiple genes 
using a next generation sequencing (NGS) procedure, the laboratory shall report only one unit of service of one 
genomic sequencing procedure, molecular multianalyte assay, multianalyte assay with algorithmic analysis, or 
proprietary laboratory analysis code. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. This was an NGS panel that was not billed with a single panel code 
as required. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the genetic testing billed 
have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the genetic testing provided on January 26, 2022, billed with codes 81206, 81210, 81235, 81272, 81275, 81276, 81292, 81295, 81298, 81301, 
81311, and 81317.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for subsequent nursing facility care provided on March 30, 2022, 
by an OON provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for subsequent nursing facility care. You say that the provider saw the enrollee in the 
facility and the facility should have obtained the prior authorization. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says the out-of-network services were not authorized. 
 
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 subsequent nursing facility care provided on 
March 30, 2022, by an OON provider.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a pneumatic compression device (E0652) and segmental 
pneumatic appliances (E0656, E0667). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a pneumatic compression device and appliances. You say that you ask for 
reversal of the denial with the enclosed clinical documentation to support that the enrollee has medically 
necessary reasons for the prescribed Flexitouch pneumatic compression device. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the LCD criteria for an advanced lymphedema pump as there is no 
failed four-week trial of a basic pneumatic compression device of either E0650 or E0651. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules state that a PCD coded as E0652 is covered for the treatment of 
lymphedema extending onto the chest, trunk and/or abdomen after a four-week trial of conservative therapy 
demonstrating failed response to treatment with an E0650 or E0651. At least four weeks of regular, daily, 
multiple-hour home usage of the E0650 or E0651 is required. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of the PCD have not been met. Specifically, the record does not show that the enrollee had at least 
four weeks of regular, daily, multiple-hour home usage of the E0650 or E0651 after careful, in-person fitting, 
training and supervision by a technician who is skilled in and who regularly and successfully uses the appliance 
provided. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a pneumatic compression device 
(E0652) and segmental pneumatic appliances (E0656, E0667).
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 the requested home ventilator is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet criteria for the requested 
home ventilator. 
 
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 enrollee does not meet criteria for the requested home ventilator. Our physician reviewer found the 
records document no neuromuscular disease. No pulmonary function testing was submitted documenting 
restrictive or obstructive disease. Records indicate the enrollee's respiratory failure is due to heart failure, 
asthma and obstructive sleep apnea and obesity hypoventilation syndrome. Provided records document that the home ventilator is being requested for use in average volume assured pressure support (AVAPS) mode with 
auto-titration (AE) which could be provided by a BiPAP device with AVAPS and a back-up rate. As stated in 
the Local Coverage Determination (L33800): "Claims for ventilators used to provide CPAP or bi-level CPAP 
therapy for conditions described in this RAD policy will be denied as not 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 a home ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a home ventilator.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a SPECT test (78452) provided on March 29, 2022 by an 
out-of-network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the SPECT test. You say that the services should be covered as you disagree with 
the denial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services denied correctly as they were non-
emergent and prior authorization was not obtained. 
 
  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 a SPECT test (78452) provided on March 29, 
2022 by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Outpatient Therapies
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for physical therapy (PT) re-evaluation provided on August 6, 
2021, by an out-of-network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for PT re-evaluation. 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 physical therapy (PT) re-evaluation provided on 
August 6, 2021, by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for lab services provided on April 6, 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 April 6, 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 intensive physical, occupational and speech therapy 
services are needed to maximize the enrollee's function and independence with mobility and activities of daily 
living. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says based on Medicare guidelines, the requested IRF services 
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 the complexity of the enrollees nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does 
not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. Medical 
problems are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. While the documentation does 
support a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for an intensive, multi-
disciplinary rehabilitation program. 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 acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Other
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve a spinal cord stimulator (SCS) trial. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve an SCS trial. You say that the services are necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says that based on the documentation provided, coverage criteria has not been met. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that no payment may be made for the implantation of 
dorsal column or depth brain stimulators or services and supplies related to such implantation, unless specific 
criteria are met. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve an SCS trial. Our reviewer says that the 
services are medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee meets all of the coverage criteria 
and the request is 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 an SCS trial have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-
approve a spinal cord stimulator (SCS) trial.  
 
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 pay for magnetic resonance (e.g., proton) imaging, brain (code 
70551) and magnetic resonance angiography, head (code 70544) provided on October 17, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for magnetic resonance (e.g., proton) imaging, brain and magnetic resonance 
angiography, head. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this claim is a duplicate of a previously paid 
claim and was correctly denied. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that claims or claim lines that have been determined to be 
exact duplicates of another claim or claim line are denied. However, such denials may be appealed. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The file includes evidence that the items/services at issue were 
reimbursed by the Plan on October 27, 2021. Comparison of the two claims shows these are exact duplicates. 
There is no evidence presented to support that the billed items/services were provided twice on the same date. 
Based on this information, we decided that the Medicare rules for magnetic resonance (e.g., proton) imaging, brain and magnetic resonance angiography, head have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pay for magnetic resonance (e.g., proton) imaging, brain (code 70551) and magnetic resonance 
angiography, head (code 70544) provided on October 17, 2021.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an office visit provided on June 29, 2022 by an out-of-
network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the office visit. You say that the services should be covered as you disagree with 
the denial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services denied correctly as they were non-
emergent and prior authorization was not obtained. 
 
  Medicare rules say that plans can require enrollees to get care from network providers. The contract with the 
Plan says that the Plan has to pay for care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving emergencies, 
out of area urgent care and pre-approved care. 
 
The requested provider in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan had network providers 
available who could have provided the items/services at issue in this appeal. The Plan did not pre-approve the 
item/service at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay for these items/services. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an office visit provided on June 29, 2022 by an 
out-of-network (OON) provider.
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 have fractured your hip and you need IRF to get 
better. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request is not medically necessary, the services you 
need can be provided safely 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 your medical problems are stable and there are no complex nursing or rehabilitation 
needs. There is no documented need for intensive rehabilitation services and 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 pay for a telehealth visit provided on June 17, 2022, by an OON 
provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for a telehealth visit. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the out-of-network 
services were not authorized. 
 
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 a telehealth visit provided on June 17, 2022, by an 
OON provider.