Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the laboratory services related to end-stage renal disease 
(ESRD) provided on April 26, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the ESRD-related laboratory services. You say that these services were 
medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says Medicare does not separately pay for ESRD-
related laboratory testing. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules state that routine ESRD laboratory services are not 
separately payable. Laboratories should bill the facility directly for laboratory services as they are considered 
part of the composite rate. No other payment for these services is allowed. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pay for the laboratory services related to end-stage renal disease (ESRD) provided on April 
26, 2022.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for laboratory services provided on March 02, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for laboratory services. You say that the records attached support the services 
provided. 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 laboratory services 
provided on March 02, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the office visit provided on December 05, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the office visit. You say that you had to see the PA since your specialist was not 
available on that day. 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 the office visit provided 
on December 05, 2022.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for home health services provided on March 14, 2022, to June 
30, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the home health services. 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 custodial 
care is excluded from coverage as it does not require the continuing attention of trained medical personnel. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that custodial care, which does not include services from 
trained medical or paramedical staff, is not covered.  
 
 
  We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of the home health services have not been met. Specifically, we find that the services at issue in this 
case are considered custodial in nature. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for home 
health services provided on March 14, 2022, to June 30, 2022.
Appeal type: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the ambulance response and treatment with no transport 
provided on September 29, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the ambulance response and treatment with no transport. You say that you did 
not call for the ambulance. You also say that you passed out and someone else called them. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says these services are not a covered benefit. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare does not pay for ambulance services when 
there is no transport.  
 
The ambulance company did not provide transport services on September 29, 2022. The ambulance benefit is a 
transportation benefit. When there is no transport, neither Medicare nor the Plan pays for the services provided. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the ambulance response and treatment with no 
transport provided on September 29, 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 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 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 does not require the intensity of services provided at an IRF. 
Specifically, the enrollee is not shown to require fifteen hours per week of rehabilitative services and regular 
physician evaluation. The enrollees care needs can be met at a lower 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 inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the supplies provided on August 15, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the supplies. You say that you would like the Plan to reconsider their denial of 
payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services are not covered. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules state that DMEPOS is covered only when there are both a 
physician order and proof of delivery.  
 
The record does not contain a valid physician order and proof of delivery for the supplies provided in this case. The record shows that the Plan made several attempts to obtain the necessary documentation without success. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the supplies provided on August 15, 2022.
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 admission to an LTACH is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the admission to an LTACH is not medically 
necessary. 
 
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 there is no evidence that the enrollee requires services that are not currently available. 
The enrollee can remain at the current facility until such time no acute services are required. The enrollee can 
then be transferred/discharged to a lower level of care for any ongoing long-term care needs.  
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 an IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you would like reconsideration based on the records 
submitted. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested IRF admission 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 complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical, and rehabilitation needs does not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The enrollee 
has a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and COVID-19 infection and was admitted to skilled 
nursing from March 1, 2023, to March 23, 2023, and is now living at home with ongoing weakness. While the 
enrollee may have a need for physical therapy and/or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for 
intensive rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different level of care. 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 an 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 you need to get your baseline function back. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services you need can be provided safely in other setting such as a 
skilled nursing facility, home with home health services or home with outpatient therapy. 
 
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 you do not require treatment by multiple therapies. 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 inpatient rehabilitation facility (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 services are medically necessary for you to 
receive the care needed for your complex medical needs. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
services that you need can be provided safely in another setting such as a skilled nursing facility. 
 
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 you do not require treatment by multiple therapies. 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 inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a radiologic examination, ankle; complete, minimum of 3 
views (x-ray), provided on September 27, 2022, billed with procedure code 73610. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the x-ray. You say that the services were medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says diagnosis code M10.371 has a code first note per the 2022 ICD-10-CM Tabular 
and is not acceptable as a primary diagnosis. 
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that certain conditions have both an underlying 
etiology and multiple body system manifestations due to the underlying etiology.  
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of the x-ray have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a 
radiologic examination, ankle; complete, minimum of 3 views (x-ray), provided on September 27, 2022, billed 
with procedure code 73610.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the wound care supplies provided on November 10, 2022, by 
an out-of-network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the wound care supplies. You say that these supplies are a separately billable 
expense that does not require separate authorization. You say that these supplies have not been included in any 
other billing to treat the wounds. You also say that these should be paid in full. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says 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 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 the wound care supplies provided on November 10, 2022, by an 
out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the Typhoid vaccine provided on October 14, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the Typhoid vaccine. You say that this vaccine should be covered. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says this vaccine is not payable under the medical plan. 
 
In the absence of injury or direct exposure to illness, Medicare does not pay for or provide the Typhoid 
vaccine. The Plan follows the same rules.  
 
Records do not show that you have been injured or directly exposed to any illness related to the Typhoid 
vaccine. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the Typhoid vaccine provided on October 
14, 2022.  
 
  Benefits for the Typhoid vaccine 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: 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 services are medically necessary for the enrollee. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's needs can be met in 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 enrollee does not require the intensity of services provided at an IRF.  The 
enrollee is not shown to require fifteen hours per week of rehabilitative services and regular physician 
evaluation. The enrollees care needs can be met at a lower level of care such as in a skilled nursing facility or 
in a sub-acute rehab. 
 
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 pre-approve an IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee requires medical attention during 
recovery from surgery. You also say the enrollee is not yet at their baseline and needs close care and assistance. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested IRF admission 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 that the complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical, and rehabilitation needs does 
not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The 
enrollee was admitted for lumbosacral surgery. The enrollees 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 enrollee may have a need for physical therapy and/or occupational therapy, there is no documented 
need for intensive rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different level of care. 
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 an IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the frames and the progressive lens provided on October 25, 
2022.  
You asked the Plan to pay for the frames and the progressive lens. You say that you still do not have an eye 
provider and you went to the out-of-network vendor because they are cheaper. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says the items are not covered benefits. 
 
Medicare generally does not cover routine vision and eyewear services. However, the Plan offers a routine 
vision and eyewear benefit that exceeds Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plan's coverage rules apply in 
this case. The Plan covers these services when provided by in-network providers. 
 
We looked at the file and the Plan's rules. Specifically, the provider was out-of-network. Based on this 
information, we decided that the Plan's rules for coverage of the frames and the progressive lens have not been 
met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the frames and the progressive lens provided 
on October 25, 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 the enrollee's needs are medically complex and 
require a physician to see them every day. A nursing home would not be an appropriate placement for this 
enrollee due to their medical complexity. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services the enrollee 
needs can be provided safely in another setting such as, a skilled nursing facility, home with home health 
services or home with outpatient therapy. 
 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 does not require treatment by multiple therapies. 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 inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.