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 LTACH is medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says LTACH is not medically necessary and continued acute hospital stay 
was offered until the enrollee can discharge to a lower level of care. 
 
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 reviewer says 
that the requested LTACH care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee was admitted with cerebral infarction and developed acute hypoxic 
respiratory failure. The record indicates that the enrollee is improving but still requires acute care services 
before transitioning to a lower level of care. The medical record does not indicate that the enrollee requires 
services that the enrollee is not currently receiving but that would be available at the LTACH 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 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: 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 this is medically necessary for the enrollee. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says this is not medically necessary, and needs can be met at an alternate level of 
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 the enrollees 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: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee requires close daily physician oversight 
in an inpatient setting. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee is not able to take part in three 
hours of therapy a day. 
 
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 physician reviewer found 
that the enrollee was admitted to the acute care hospital for a stroke. Her medical problems are stable. There is 
not a reasonable expectation that she will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive 
rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF.  
 While the medical record supports a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documented 
need for intensive rehabilitation services. 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. 
 
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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve FreeStyle Lite with device kit. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve FreeStyle Lite with device kit. You say that you prefer the FreeStyle over 
the Contour Next. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you do not meet the criteria for coverage. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that plans may specify brands and manufacturers as 
preferred. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of FreeStyle Lite with device kit have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve FreeStyle Lite with device kit.
Appeal type: Testing
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a colonoscopy to be provided by an out-of-network 
(OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the diagnostic service. You say that you have a family history of colon 
cancer. You say that the requested provider has done your last 3 colonoscopies. You also say that you are 
requesting only a colonoscopy from this provider and no other medical services. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says previous treatments with this provider have not been authorized. The Plan also says the 
colonoscopy can be provided in-network. 
 
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 
a colonoscopy to be provided 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 the enrollee meets the medical management criteria 
and need for physician oversight of therapy and medical needs. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 
the IRF care is not medically necessary, and the enrollee's needs can be met at a lower level of care such as a 
skilled nursing facility (SNF), 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee has had recent falls requiring Emergency Department care. The enrollee's 
medical problems are stable, and there are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. The enrollee does not 
require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an 
intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While the medical record supports a need for physical and/or 
occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive rehabilitation 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 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: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you are unable to walk or even get out of bed 
without help from a physical therapist. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the IRF care is not 
medically necessary, and your needs can be met at a lower level of care such as a skilled nursing facility (SNF). 
 
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 found to be medically reasonable and necessary for this enrollee. Our physician reviewer 
found you have a past medical history of multiple comorbidities hospitalized after multiple fractures with other 
complications. The record shows that you would be expected to require close medical supervision on an 
inpatient basis during rehabilitation. Your evaluating therapists recommend intense therapy (specifically three 
hours per day, five days per week) thus IRF criteria have been met and is 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 IRF care have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-approve 
acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.  
 
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: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve four additional trips. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the additional trips. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this request 
has exceeded the enrollee's benefit limit. 
 
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 up to 60 one-way trips per year.  
 
 
 We looked at your request, the records in the case file, and the rules. Based on this information, we decided 
that the enrollee has exhausted the Plan maximum benefit for coverage of routine transportation. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve four additional trips.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to reduce the cost sharing for the ultrasound of the eye you had on 
April 20, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to reduce the cost sharing for the ultrasound of the eye. You say that you cannot afford this 
cost sharing and would appreciate the cost being reduced to just the $25 specialist copayment. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says this cost sharing was charged correctly. The Plan says that because the allowed 
amount for this service ($71.89) is less than your copayment obligation, you are responsible for the full allowed 
amount. 
 
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 $100 
copayment for diagnostic radiology services.  
 
You have been asked to pay a $100 copayment for the ultrasound of the eye. This item/service falls within the 
diagnostic radiology 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 reduce the cost sharing for the 
ultrasound of the eye you had on April 20, 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 this is medically necessary for the enrollee. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the medical records submitted do not establish that the IRF Admission is 
reasonable and 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 enrollees 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: 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 requires ongoing acute care 
provided in an LTACH. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the criteria for admission to an LTACH 
are not met in this case. 
 
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 reviewer says 
that the requested LTACH care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the record indicates that the enrollee still requires acute care services before 
transitioning to a lower level of care. The enrollee continues to receive acute care services, and these have not 
been denied. The medical record does not indicate that the enrollee requires services that are not currently 
available but that would be available at the LTACH facility. The elements of the coverage rules 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 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: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for genetic testing provided to the enrollee on April 26, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the genetic testing billed. You say that this should be paid for. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says a panel cannot be unbundled and billed as individual components regardless of the 
fact that the test reports multiple individual pathogens and/or targets. 
 
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 genetic testing provided to the 
enrollee on April 26, 2022.
Appeal type: Hospice
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for skilled nursing facility services provided to the enrollee on 
October 28, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. You say that this should be paid for. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says the enrollee was under hospice at this time. 
 
Medicare rules say that Original Medicare, not the Plan, is responsible for all Medicare-covered non-hospice 
services. Medicare hospice pays for claims related to the terminal illness. The rules say that the Plan may direct 
the provider to bill Medicare directly for these services.  
 
The enrollee was under the Medicare hospice benefit for the dates of service at issue in this appeal. Therefore, 
we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for skilled nursing facility services provided to the enrollee on 
October 28, 2021.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for medical services provided on March 29, 2022 by an out-of-
network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the medical services. You say that you were not aware that authorization was 
required. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 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 in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. 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 medical services provided on March 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 the enrollee requires an IRF facility with a higher 
level of care and more aggressive therapy then the enrollee will have a higher likelihood of returning home. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the criteria for admission to the Acute Inpatient Rehabilitation 
setting have not been met. The enrollee's ongoing skilled therapy and nursing needs can be provided at a lower 
level of 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 the enrollees 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 the optometry services provided on July 19, 2022, by an out-
of-network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the optometry services. You say that you should not be held responsible because 
you did not know these services required prior authorization. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
services were provided out-of-network and were not approved in advance. 
 
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 the optometry services provided on July 19, 2022, 
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 January 21, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the lab services. You say that this should be paid for. 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 January 21, 2022.