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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for ambulance transportation provided on 
March 18, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for ambulance transportation. You say that you do not believe the 
enrollee should have to pay the copayment, the transport was only a block away. 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 $275 
copayment for Ambulance services. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $275 copayment for ambulance transportation. This item/service falls within the 
Ambulance 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 ambulance 
transportation provided on March 18, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Via Disc NP allograft procedure to the L5-S1 level. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the procedure. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says medical studies have not proven that this service is helpful for treatment. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that items and services that are not medically 
necessary are not covered.  
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the procedure. Our reviewer says that 
the requested services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found that Via disc allograft is experimental. More research is needed. 
 
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 procedure have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve the Via Disc NP allograft procedure to the L5-S1 level.
Appeal type: ER
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for ER visit provided on July 30, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for ER 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 $110 
copayment for Emergency care. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $110 copayment for ER visit. This item/service falls within the 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 ER visit provided on July 30, 
2022.
Appeal type: Testing
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for a colonoscopy and biopsy provided on 
September 22, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for a colonoscopy and biopsy. You say that you were told you 
would not have an out of pocket expense for this service. 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 $300 
copayment for outpatient surgery, including services provided at hospital outpatient facilities and ambulatory 
surgical centers. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $300 copayment for a colonoscopy and biopsy. This item/service falls within the 
outpatient surgery, including services provided at hospital outpatient facilities and ambulatory surgical centers 
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 a colonoscopy and biopsy 
provided on September 22, 2022.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for lab testing provided on May 05, 2022, by an out-of-network 
(OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for lab testing. 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 in 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 lab testing provided on May 05, 2022, by an out-
of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for outpatient surgery provided on February 18, 2022, by an out-
of-network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for outpatient surgery. You say that you are requesting reconsideration. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says as a member of our plan, the enrollee must use network providers. If the 
enrollee receives unauthorized care from an out-of-network provider, we may deny coverage and the enrollee 
will be responsible for the entire cost. 
 
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 outpatient surgery provided on February 18, 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 an IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that your policy covers an IRF stay, and you meet the 
criteria for an IRF stay. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you do not meet the Medicare criteria for 
admission to inpatient rehabilitation. 
 
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, including either physical 
therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. It is unlikely that you can 
participate in and benefit from the intensity of therapies provided on acute inpatient rehabilitation. 
 
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: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for ambulance transport provided on January 21, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the ambulance transport. You say that you are requesting reconsideration for the 
ambulance transport. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the ambulance transport was not medically 
necessary. 
 
Medicare pays for ambulance services only when they are medically reasonable and necessary. The Plan 
follows the same rules.  
 
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 pay for the ambulance transport. Our reviewer says 
that the service is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the record indicates that the enrollee 
was transported from a hospital upon discharge. The record also indicates that the enrollee was transported via 
stretcher. The record does not indicate that the enrollee's clinical condition is such that other methods of 
transport, such as stretcher van, were contraindicated or that the expertise, services and lifesaving and life-
sustaining equipment that only a fully-equipped ambulance can provide was required.  The record provided does not establish the medical necessity and reasonableness, as defined by Medicare rules, 
of the requested service. 
 
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 ambulance transport have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pay for ambulance transport provided on January 21, 2022.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Entyvio. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Entyvio. You say that the requested Entyvio is medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee must try and fail Inflectra or Renflexis first. 
 
Medicare covers Part B medications when they are reasonable and necessary but allows health plans to 
implement step therapy criteria. The Plan's contract indicates that it has implemented such criteria for certain Part B medications. 
 
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 Entyvio. Our reviewer says that the 
Plan's step therapy criteria have not been met. Our physician reviewer found based on the medical records 
provided there is no indication that the enrollee has tried and failed the required drug(s). Based on the medical 
records provided and the Medicare-approved major drug compendia there is no indication that the Plan's 
required drug(s) would likely be less effective and/or likely have adverse effects for the enrollee. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Entyvio have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Entyvio.
Appeal type: Outpatient Mental Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a psychiatric evaluation provided on May 12, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for a psychiatric evaluation. You say that you were not aware a prior authorization 
was required and thought your billing office had obtained necessary approval. 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 a psychiatric evaluation 
provided on May 12, 2022.
Appeal type: Outpatient Mental Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for outpatient mental health care provided on 
May 31, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for outpatient mental health care. You say that you disagree with 
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 $35 
copayment for outpatient mental health care.  
 
You have been asked to pay a $35 copayment for outpatient mental health care. This item/service falls within 
the outpatient mental health 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 
outpatient mental health care provided on May 31, 2022.
Appeal type: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for ambulance transport provided on May 28, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for ambulance transport. 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 $275 
copayment for Ambulance services. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $275 copayment for ambulance transport. This item/service falls within the 
Ambulance 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 ambulance transport 
provided on May 28, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayments for knee injections provided from August 23, 
2022, to September 6, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayments for knee injections. You say that you were only present for less 
than 10 minutes for all three of these injections. You do not feel you should have to pay a copayment for each 
one. 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 $50 
copayment for Physician/Practitioner services, including doctor's office visits. You had 3 visits, each with a 
$50 copayment resulting in a $150 total copayment ($50 x 3 = $150).  
 
You have been asked to pay a combined $150 copayment for knee injections. This item/service falls within the 
Physician/Practitioner services, including doctor's 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 waive the copayments for knee injections provided from August 23, 
2022, to September 6, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the office visit provided on November 11, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the office visit. You say that the services were medically necessary. 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 November 11, 2021.
Appeal type: ER
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for emergency room services on August 13, 
2022, to August 15, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for emergency room services. 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 $120 
copayment for emergency room. Emergency care refers to services that are furnished by a provider qualified to 
furnish emergency services, and needed to evaluate or stabilize an emergency medical condition. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $120 copayment for emergency room services. This item/service falls within the 
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 
services on August 13, 2022, to August 15, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for wound care provided on June 27, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for wound care. You say that you are appealing the claim payment denial. 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 wound care provided on 
June 27, 2022.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for outpatient surgery provided on July 27, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for outpatient surgery. 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 $350 
copayment for Outpatient surgery. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $350 copayment for outpatient surgery. This item/service falls within the 
Outpatient surgery 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. You have been asked to pay $210.61 which is less than the standard $350 copayment for outpatient 
surgery. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for outpatient surgery 
provided on July 27, 2022.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for x-rays provided on June 17, 2022, by an out-of-network 
(OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for x-rays. 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 in 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 x-rays provided on June 17, 2022, by an out-of-
network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for laboratory services provided on July 15, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for laboratory services. You say that you are appealing the claim payment denial. 
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 July 15, 2022.