Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the cost share for the clinic visit provided on September 27, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the cost share for the clinic visit. You say that this should not be applied to the 
deductible. 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. Your 
contract with the Plan says that you must pay 10% coinsurance for doctor or other health care provider services. Your contract with the Plan also says that there is an $800 deductible which applies to doctor and 
other health care provider services.  
 
You have been asked to pay $16.52, which is 10% coinsurance of the allowed amount for the clinic visit 
($165.21 allowed amount x 10% coinsurance = $16.52). This item/service falls within the doctor and other 
health care provider services. 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 $148.69 towards the deductible, which is the remaining amount after applying the 
coinsurance ($165.21 allowed amount - $16.52 coinsurance = $148.69). The Plan has followed Medicare rules 
by clearly disclosing in the contract that there is an $800 deductible which applies to doctor and other health 
care provider services. This cost sharing is a contractual obligation that had not been met at the time the clinic 
visit was received on September 27, 2022. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to waive the cost 
share for the clinic visit provided on September 27, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for ophthalmological services provided on December 05, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for ophthalmological services. You say that you are requesting the submitted 
documentation be reviewed. 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 ophthalmological 
services provided on December 05, 2022.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the enrollee can make progress in a 
rehabilitation facility and that being inpatient in a hospital setting is not conducive to physical rehabilitation. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the enrollee's needs can be provided in a less intensive 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 that the enrollee does not require services at the LTACH that are not available at the 
acute care hospital where they are currently receiving care. All medically necessary care is being provided in the current acute care setting. The requested LTACH services are not medically necessary, reasonable, and 
appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee and able to be furnished safely and effectively only 
on an inpatient basis. 
 
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 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 are unable to walk, stand or use the restroom by 
yourself currently. You also say prior to your hospitalization you were completely independent, and you need 
the IRF services to receive the therapy you need. 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 your nursing, medical, and rehabilitation needs does not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. You do not 
require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an 
intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While you 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 you will be able to fully 
participate in and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve an IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve neurology services to be provided by an out-of-network 
(OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the neurology services. You say that this provider can render more effective 
treatment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says network providers are available to render necessary 
care. 
 
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 
neurology services to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayments for the b-12 drug administration services 
provided from October 3, 2022, to December 16, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayments for the drug administration services. You say that this should be 
considered inpatient not outpatient. 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 $200 
copayment for each drug administration service provided at an outpatient hospital.  
 
You have been asked to pay $58.45 for each drug administration service, which is less than the standard $200 
copayment. This item/service falls within the outpatient hospital services benefit category. You have been asked to pay a total of $116.90 ($58.45 copayment per service x 2 services = $116.90). 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 the b-12 drug administration services provided from October 3, 
2022, to December 16, 2022.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for radiological services provided on October 19, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for radiological services provided. You say that the claim was billed correctly and 
should be paid. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this claim was billed with an invalid diagnosis. 
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that manifestation diagnosis codes are never 
permitted to be used as first listed or principal diagnosis codes.  
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of radiological services provided have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pay for radiological services provided on October 19, 2022.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the durable medical equipment (DME) set up (A9901), bath 
or shower chair (E0240), standard wheelchair (K0001), (E1999), commode chair (E0163), seat lift mechanism 
(E0627), and replacement footrest (K0045) provided from February 21, 2022, to March 23, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the DME. You say that the items were medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the provider in this case is not a Medicare certified provider. The Plan says that 
payment cannot be made for items supplied by a provider is not a Medicare certified provider. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare payment cannot be made to a provider that is 
not enrolled in the Medicare program. 
 Review of the file and Medicare records indicates that the provider at issue is not enrolled in the Medicare 
program. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the durable medical equipment (DME) 
set up (A9901), bath or shower chair (E0240), standard wheelchair (K0001), (E1999), commode chair (E0163), 
seat lift mechanism (E0627), and replacement footrest (K0045) provided from February 21, 2022, to March 23, 
2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an office visit and related services provided on December 19, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for an office visit and related 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 an office visit and 
related services provided on December 19, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for established patient home services provided on January 11, 
2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for established patient home 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 established patient home 
services provided on January 11, 2023.
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 it is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet all the requirements. 
 
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 does not require services at the LTACH that are not available at the acute 
care hospital where the enrollee currently receiving care. All medically necessary care is being provided in the 
current acute care setting. The requested LTACH services are not medically necessary, reasonable, and 
appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee and able to be furnished safely and effectively only on an inpatient basis. 
 
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 LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that you are requesting reconsideration for 
the denial of an LTACH admission stating the enrollee requires that level of care. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the request for admission to an LTACH is denied as 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 the enrollee does not require services at the LTACH that are not available at the acute 
care hospital where they are currently receiving care. The 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 LTACH services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 86077 billed for date of service September 
15, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 86077. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the number 
of units billed exceeds the maximum allowed.  
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that claims submitted where the unit of service 
exceeds the MUE value cannot be paid when the MAI value is 2.  
 
In this case, the MUE for CPT code 86077 is 1. The MAI value for this code is 2. You billed 2 units of this 
code, exceeding the MUE. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of 
procedure code 86077 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for 
procedure code 86077 billed for date of service September 15, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an office visit to be provided by an out-of-network 
(OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the office visit. You say that you have seen this provider in the past and 
would like to continue treatment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says network providers are available 
to render necessary care. 
 
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 
an office visit to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for office visit provided on September 16, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for office visit. You say that you are requesting reconsideration for 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 office visit provided on 
September 16, 2022.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for pneumatic compression devices (E0675, E0673) provided on 
October 14, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for pneumatic compression devices. You say that the items at issue were a medical 
necessity for the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says rules for payment for durable medical 
equipment have not been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules state that for equipment to be covered, it must be appropriate 
and needed for use inside the home.  
 
 
  The items at issue in this appeal were for use outside of the home. Although these items may be helpful, neither 
Medicare nor the Plan covers equipment for use outside the home. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pay for pneumatic compression devices (E0675, E0673) provided on October 14, 2022.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitor (CGM). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a Dexcom G6 CGM. 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. Medicare rules say that therapeutic CGMs are considered medically 
reasonable and necessary for enrollees with diabetes who use insulin with at least three daily administrations, 
require frequent self-adjustment of insulin dosage based on the blood glucose testing results and have had an 
in-person visit with their treating physician to assess adherence to their CGM regimen and diabetes treatment plan. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The documentation indicates that the enrollee does not use insulin 
with at least three daily injections. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of a 
Dexcom G6 CGM have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a 
Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitor (CGM).
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for laboratory services provided on September 07, 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 September 07, 2022.
Appeal type: ER
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for the emergency room visit provided on 
December 09, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for the emergency room visit. You say that the doctor did not do 
anything so you should not have to pay. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this cost sharing was 
charged correctly. 
 
The rules say a plan must disclose to its enrollees in clear, accurate terms all cost sharing information (such as 
copayments, deductibles and coinsurance). Your contract with the Plan clearly says that you must pay a $90 
copayment for emergency care. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $90 copayment for the emergency room 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. The records show you were seen in the emergency department. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to waive the copayment for the emergency room visit provided on December 09, 2022.