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

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for an inpatient hospital admission associated with an elective surgery. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for acute inpatient hospital care. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says that there is no documentation provided to support the expectation the 
enrollee will require a greater than 2 midnight stay. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that inpatient hospital care is covered when the doctor 
expects the patient to need hospital care that crosses at least two midnights. In rare and unusual cases, 
consideration may be given to inpatient hospital care when the hospital stay does not cross two midnights or 
more. 
 
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 acute inpatient hospital care. Our reviewer 
says that the documentation supports that the criteria for inpatient payment are met in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found that record does show that at the time of inpatient admission, the admitting physician 
reasonable expected that the patients necessary hospital care (including earlier ED and/or observation care) 
would span two midnights. The health plan has approved the elective procedure. The past medical history was 
positive for co-morbidities including but not limited to: essential hypertension; atrial fibrillation (on Eliquis); 
and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. There is significant past and/or current medical history that would 
place this enrollee at increased risk for peri-surgical complications requiring an inpatient stay. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of acute inpatient hospital care have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
has to pay for an inpatient hospital admission associated with an elective surgery.  
 
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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the knee orthosis (L1852). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the knee orthosis. You say that this being requested because the enrollee 
cannot do normal activities due to the enrollee's ongoing pain. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 
your request is not medically necessary because the enrollee's records show the enrollee does not have recent 
injury or surgery or objective evidence of instability. 
 
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 knee orthosis. Our physician 
reviewer found the enrollee has no acute injury, recent surgery, joint misalignment or joint laxity. 
 
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 knee orthosis have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve the knee orthosis (L1852).
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an implantable cardioverter defibrillator. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the requested services. You say that the enrollee's heart rate needs to be 
regulated. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says coverage criteria were not met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that implantable cardioverter defibrillators are only 
covered under certain medical indications.  
 
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 requested services. Our physician 
reviewer found that the enrollee has preserved left ventricular function, ejection fraction 60%. A review of the 
clinical documents does not show that the enrollee meets implant criteria for defibrillator insertion according to 
current guidelines. In the absence of such documentation, implantation of an automatic defibrillator would not 
be considered medically necessary in the management of this 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 the requested services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve an implantable cardioverter defibrillator.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for domiciliary or rest home visit provided on September 12, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for domiciliary or rest home visit. 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 domiciliary or rest home 
visit provided on September 12, 2022.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for lab testing provided on September 18, 2022, to September 
26, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for lab testing. You say that you are requesting reconsideration. 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 lab testing provided on 
September 18, 2022, to September 26, 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 for the enrollee to have the 
best recovery. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's ongoing skilled therapy needs are 
being met in the current 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 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.
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 unable to be met in a lower 
level of care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services are 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 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.
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 services are the best way to manage 
the enrollee's healthcare needs. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee is receiving the 
appropriate level of care at current hospital. 
 
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 is receiving appropriate care at the present acute care hospital. The 
enrollee does not require services at the LTACH that are not available at the acute care hospital where they are 
currently receiving 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 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 long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the enrollee's needs can be met at this 
level of care and not in a lower level of care such as a skilled nursing facility. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says the enrollee's needs could be provided in another setting, such as an acute rehabilitation facility, 
skilled nursing facility, nursing facility, outpatient setting or home 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 there are no services available at the LTACH that the enrollee requires that are not 
available at the health care setting being offered by the health plan. The health plan has approved ongoing care 
in the current acute care 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 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the office visit and laboratory services provided on October 
28, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the office visit and laboratory services. 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 and 
laboratory services provided on October 28, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for surgery services provided on September 16, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for surgery 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 surgery services 
provided on September 16, 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 services are medically necessary and 
denying this service may jeopardize the enrollee's opportunity for a full recovery. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the enrollee's care can be safely done at the current location. 
 
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 are no services available at the LTACH that the enrollee requires that are not 
available at the health care setting being offered by the health plan. The health plan has approved ongoing care 
in the current acute care 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 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for Principal care management services provided on October 07, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for Principal care management 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 Principal care 
management services provided on October 07, 2022.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the wound care supplies provided on January 24, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the wound care supplies. You say that the enrollee had wound treatment and 
billing for the supplies is appropriate. 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 wound care supplies 
provided on January 24, 2022.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the skilled nursing facility (SNF) care from April 10, 2021, 
through May 9, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the SNF care. You say that the claim should be paid. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the services are not payable as billed. 
 
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 SNF care. Our physician reviewer found 
the documentation does not support the correct Patient-Driven Payment Model (PDPM) was submitted by the 
organization. The diagnosis used at the time of admission includes Alzheimers Disease which falls into the 
neuro-rehabilitation primary diagnosis clinical group. There was no documentation to support that the enrollee 
had a recent acute-care hospital stay. The partial adjustment to PDPM 1BB21 was appropriate. 
 
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 SNF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pay for the skilled nursing facility (SNF) care from April 10, 2021, through May 9, 2021.
Appeal type: Outpatient Therapies
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for outpatient hospital services provided on 
September 20, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for outpatient hospital services. 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 $195 
copayment for outpatient hospital services.  
 
You have been asked to pay a $195 copayment for outpatient hospital services. However, you are only being 
asked to pay $174.22 which is less than the required amount. 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 outpatient hospital 
services provided on September 20, 2022.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for laboratory services provided on September 01, 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 September 01, 2022.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to reduce the copayment for a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) 
provided on March 25, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to reduce the copayment for the MRI. You say that you are only supposed to pay a total of 
$144 per your agreement with the provider. 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 advanced imaging services at an outpatient hospital.  
 
You have been asked to pay a total of 170.61, which is less than the $275 copayment for the MRI. This 
item/service falls within the advanced imaging services at an outpatient hospital 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 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) provided on March 25, 2022.  
 Your complaint about paying more than the agreed amount based on your provider agreement is not a valid 
appeal for medical coverage. Medicare does not permit us to make a decision about these types of complaints.