Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve behavioral health treatment. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve behavioral health treatment. 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. The rules say that inpatient psychiatric services may be covered if the 
patient requires active treatment.  
 
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 behavioral health treatment. Our 
reviewer says that the services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found based upon review 
of the records provided, you do not meet the criteria for November 9, 2022, forward as you were not shown to be a danger to yourself or others. There were no delusions, auditory or visual hallucinations noted. You were 
cooperative/compliant with treatment while not showing any threats the safety as you awaited placement. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of behavioral health treatment have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve behavioral health treatment.
Appeal type: ER
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for emergency room visit provided from 
August 11, 2022, to August 12, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for emergency room visit. You say that you are requesting a 
reconsideration on the copayment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this cost sharing was charged 
correctly. 
 
The rules say a plan must disclose to its enrollees in clear, accurate terms all cost sharing information (such as 
copayments, deductibles and coinsurance). Your contract with the Plan clearly says that you must pay a $90 
copayment for in-network emergency care.  
 
You have been asked to pay a $90 copayment for emergency room visit. This item/service falls within the in-
network emergency care 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 emergency 
room visit provided from August 11, 2022, to August 12, 2022.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a tissue exam by pathologist provided on March 15, 2022, by 
an out-of-network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for a tissue exam by pathologist. You say that you do not have control over where 
the patient goes for this service, which should be covered. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there 
was no preauthorization by a primary care provider (this is different than a referral) for an out-of-network 
(OON) provider or facility, and this was not an emergency. Therefore, the decision is upheld. 
 
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 tissue exam by pathologist provided on March 
15, 2022, by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for specialist office visit provided on 
December 21, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for specialist office visit. You say that this should be covered. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says this cost sharing was charged correctly. 
 
The rules say a plan must disclose to its enrollees in clear, accurate terms all cost sharing information (such as 
copayments, deductibles and coinsurance). Your contract with the Plan clearly says that you must pay a $45 
copayment for specialist visits. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $45 copayment for specialist office visit. This item/service falls within the 
specialist visits 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 specialist office visit 
provided on December 21, 2021.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the coinsurance for a custom fabricated wheelchair seat and 
back cushion (E2609, E2617) provided on December 22, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the coinsurance for the custom fabricated wheelchair seat and back cushion. You 
say that the services should be covered as you disagree with the denial. 
 The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this cost sharing was charged correctly. 
 
The rules say a plan must disclose to its enrollees in clear, accurate terms all cost sharing information (such as 
copayments, deductibles and coinsurance). Your contract with the Plan clearly says that you must pay a 20% 
coinsurance for Durable medical equipment (DME) and related supplies.  
 
 
  You have been asked to pay a 20% coinsurance for the custom fabricated wheelchair seat and back cushion. 
This item/service falls 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 a custom fabricated wheelchair seat and back cushion 
(E2609, E2617) provided on December 22, 2021.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a continuous glucose monitor. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the requested services. You say that the enrollee is at risk for uncontrolled 
diabetes. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the requirements. 
 
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 does not indicate that the enrollee uses insulin 
with at least three daily injections or requires frequent self-adjustment of insulin dosage based on the blood 
glucose testing results. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage have not been 
met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a continuous glucose monitor.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to reduce the copayment for a specilist visit provided on July 08, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to reduce the copayment for a specilist visit. You say that you paid a $25 copay, and now 
you are being told you owe another $10, becuase this provider is a specialist. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says this cost sharing was charged correctly. 
 
The rules say a plan must disclose to its enrollees in clear, accurate terms all cost sharing information (such as 
copayments, deductibles and coinsurance). Your contract with the Plan clearly says that you must pay a $35 
copayment for physician/practitioner services, including doctors office visits. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $35 copayment for a specilist visit. This item/service falls within the 
physician/practitioner services, including doctors office visits 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 reduce the copayment for a specilist visit provided on July 08, 2022.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Mounjaro. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Mounjaro. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this drug is not 
covered under the enrollee's Part B plan. 
 
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 Mounjaro.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve SNF care. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that this is medically necessary for the enrollee. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says this is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for care in a SNF when the four factors 
listed in the Medicare rules section are met. Custodial care is 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 SNF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested SNF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee does not have daily skilled nursing needs that require the specialized 
skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional nurse. The enrollee does not have daily skilled therapy 
needs that require the specialized skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional therapist. The 
enrollee does not require daily skilled nursing and/or skilled therapy on an inpatient basis in a skilled nursing 
facility (SNF) setting. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of SNF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve SNF care.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for surgery on July 01, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for surgery. You say that you want to appeal the amount being 
charged. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this cost sharing was charged correctly. 
 
The rules say a plan must disclose to its enrollees in clear, accurate terms all cost sharing information (such as 
copayments, deductibles and coinsurance). Your contract with the Plan clearly says that you must pay a $325 
copayment for each outpatient hospital and observation service. Covered services include but are not limited to 
services in an emergency department or outpatient clinic, such as observation services or outpatient surgery. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $325 copayment for surgery. This item/service falls within the Outpatient 
hospital services 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 surgery on July 01, 
2022.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the coinsurance for a respiratory device provided on February 
21, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the coinsurance for a respiratory device. You say that you keep getting bills and 
you are unsure of what to pay, and this is also a high coinsurance. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 
this cost sharing was charged correctly. 
 
The rules say a plan must disclose to its enrollees in clear, accurate terms all cost sharing information (such as 
copayments, deductibles and coinsurance). Your contract with the Plan clearly says that you must pay a 20% 
coinsurance for durable medical equipment (DME) and related supplies.  
 
You have been asked to pay a 20% coinsurance for a respiratory device. This item/service falls 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 a respiratory device provided on February 21, 2022.   
Your complaint about customer service being unavailable is not a valid appeal for medical coverage. This part 
of your complaint is a grievance that must be answered by the Plan. Medicare does not permit us to make a 
decision about these types of complaints.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for office visit provided on January 21, 2022, by an out-of-
network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for office visit. You say that you are requesting reconsideration. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the enrollee must receive their care from a network provider (for more information 
about this, see Section 2 of this chapter). In most cases, care the enrollee receives from an out-of-network 
provider (a provider who is not part of our plans network) will not be 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 requested provider in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan had network providers 
available who could have provided the items/services at issue in this appeal. The Plan did not pre-approve the 
item/service at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay for these items/services. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for office visit provided on January 21, 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 inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you need IRF care. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says you do not meet criteria for IRF care. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found that the complexity of your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs 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 you 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: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve additional non-emergency transportation trips. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve additional non-emergency transportation trips. You say that it is medically 
needed for you to have a ride to your cancer treatments. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
service is not covered beyond the 30 allotted one-way trips. 
 
Medicare does not cover transport in a vehicle that is not an ambulance. However, the Plan offers a 
transportation benefit that exceeds Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plans coverage rules apply in this 
case. The Plan covers a maximum of 30 trips per year.  
 
 We looked at your request, the records in the case file, and the rules. Based on this information, we decided 
that you have exhausted the Plan maximum benefit for coverage of routine transportation. Specifically, as of 
September 29, 2022, you have used or scheduled 30 one-way trips. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve additional non-emergency transportation trips.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the coinsurance for an injection provided on June 27, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the coinsurance for an injection. You say that you disagree with the coinsurance. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this cost sharing was charged correctly. 
 
The rules say a plan must disclose to its enrollees in clear, accurate terms all cost sharing information (such as 
copayments, deductibles and coinsurance). Your contract with the Plan clearly says that you must pay a 20% 
coinsurance for in-network Medicare Part B prescription drugs.  
 
You have been asked to pay a 20% coinsurance for an injection. The total allowed amount for the injection is 
$784.04. The amount you are being asked to pay is $156.81 ($784.04 x 20% = $156.81). 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 an injection provided on June 27, 2022.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the drug testing (G0483) provided on April 12, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code G0483. You say that you would like the Plan to reconsider their 
denial of payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the medical records do not support the billing 
of code G0483. 
 
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, the CPT Code Manual definition of code G0483 is Drug test(s), definitive, utilizing (1) drug 
identification methods able to identify individual drugs and distinguish between structural isomers (but not 
necessarily stereoisomers), including, but not limited to gc/ms (any type, single or tandem) and lc/ms (any type, 
single or tandem and excluding immunoassays (e.g., ia, eia, elisa, emit, fpia) and enzymatic methods (e.g., 
alcohol dehydrogenase)), (2) stable isotope or other universally recognized internal standards in all samples 
(e.g., to control for matrix effects, interferences and variations in signal strength), and (3) method or drug-
specific calibration and matrix-matched quality control material (e.g., to control for instrument variations and 
mass spectral drift); qualitative or quantitative, all sources, includes specimen validity testing, per day; 22 or 
more drug class(es), including metabolite(s) if performed.  
We find that CPT code G0483 is not supported in the medical record. Specifically, the records provided do not 
support that 22 drug classes were tested. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of procedure code G0483 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pay for the drug testing (G0483) provided on April 12, 2022.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the coinsurance for Durable medical equipment provided on 
March 23, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the coinsurance for Durable medical equipment. You say that you shouldnt have 
to pay for this. 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 20% 
coinsurance for Durable medical equipment (DME). 
 
You have been asked to pay 20% coinsurance for Durable medical equipment. This item/service falls within 
the Durable medical equipment (DME) 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 Durable medical equipment provided on March 23, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an annual visit provided on May 9, 2022, by an out-of-
network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for an annual visit. You say that you thought this was the provider you were 
supposed to be establishing with. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there was no preauthorization by 
a primary care provider (this is different than a referral) for an out-of-network (OON) provider or facility, and 
this was not an emergency. Therefore, the decision is upheld. 
 
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 annual visit provided on May 9, 2022, by an 
out-of-network (OON) provider.