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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a PET scan. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the PET scan. You say that this is medically necessary for the enrollee. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the criteria for coverage have not been met. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules state that a PET scan for dementia and neurodegenerative 
diseases are only covered under certain conditions. 
 
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 PET scan. Our reviewer says that the 
service is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the service is not medically necessary. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the PET scan have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pay for a PET scan.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for a take-home supply of methadone; up to 7 additional day supply 
(code G2078) provided on November 21, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for a take-home supply of methadone; up to 7 additional day supply. You say that 
you have been enrolled in the Medicare program to provide Opioid Treatment Program (OTP) services since 
January 1, 2020. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the claim for these drugs was billed by the 
physician, not the opioid treatment program (OTP) facility. The rules say that only an entity enrolled with 
Medicare as an OTP can bill these codes. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare health plans must make reasonable and 
diligent efforts to gather and forward to the IRE information regarding its decision to deny coverage or 
payment. 
 
The Plan has not made reasonable and diligent efforts to gather and forward to us information regarding their 
decision to deny your request. Specifically, the OTP is the billing provider and is Substance Abuse and Mental 
Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) certified. The rules cited by the Plan do not provide a valid reason 
to deny this claim given that the OTP meets the Medicare coverage criteria. This provider continues to use the 
professional claim, which is allowed under Medicare rules. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for a 
take-home supply of methadone; up to 7 additional day supply (code G2078) provided on November 21, 2022.  
 
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: Outpatient Mental Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for outpatient mental health care provided on January 5, 2023, 
by an out-of-network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for outpatient mental health care. You say that you are requesting payment. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says this provider is out-of-network with the Plan and 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 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 mental health care provided on January 
5, 2023, by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for physician's services provided on July 11, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the physician's services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says non-
emergent, non-urgent services with out-of-network providers require prior authorization. 
 
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 did not pre-approve the 
services at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay for these services. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for physician's services provided on July 11, 2022.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for eye surgery provided on November 07, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for eye surgery. 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 eye surgery provided on 
November 07, 2022.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a pneumatic compression device (E0652) and segmental 
pneumatic appliance (E0670). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a pneumatic compression device and appliance. You say that you are 
appealing the denial of the Lymphapress Optimal. The advanced compression pump is necessary to manage the 
enrollee's lymphedema. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the LCD 
criteria for an advanced lymphedema pump as there is no documented evidence of swelling extending past the 
upper leg.  
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules state that a PCD coded as E0652 is not covered for the treatment of 
lymphedema of the extremities alone even if the criteria in this section are met. Claims will be denied as not 
reasonable and necessary. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. A PCD coded as E0652 used to treat lymphedema not extending onto 
the chest, trunk and/or abdomen or chronic venous insufficiency (CVI) is not eligible for reimbursement. Based 
on this information we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the PCD have not been met. Specifically, 
the record does not show that the enrollee has lymphedema extending on the chest, trunk and/or abdomen. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a pneumatic compression device (E0652) and 
segmental pneumatic appliance (E0670).
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 has an abnormal rate of mobility and 
inpatient rehabilitation would truly help to be able to take care for self with day-to-day activities and life. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's records do not show that you have complex rehabilitation 
needs requiring frequent evaluation by a rehab doctor, services needed may be provided safely at a lower level 
of care with good success. 
 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. 
 
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 admission to a Long-Term Acute Care 
Hospital is needed for the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's records do not 
show the need for LTACH, when you are ready to leave the hospital, services may be provided safely in 
another setting, skilled nursing facility or at home with home health service. 
 
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 
current acute care hospital.  
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: Drugs
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for the Bupivacaine (J3490) provided on July 14, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the Bupivacaine. You say that you would like this claim to be reconsidered for 
payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that payment was made according to the Medicare 
allowable rate. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare health plans must make reasonable and 
diligent efforts to gather and forward to the IRE information regarding its decision to deny coverage or 
payment. 
 
The Plan has not made reasonable and diligent efforts to gather and forward to us information regarding their 
decision to deny your request. The records do not support the Plan's denial in this case. This means that the 
Plan has not provided a valid reason for denying payment of the Bupivacaine. It is the burden of the Health 
Plan to substantiate their denial with evidence. In this case, the denial has not been substantiated so we must 
find in your favor. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for the Bupivacaine (J3490) provided on July 
14, 2022.  
 
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: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the enrollee requires a LTACH level of 
care stay for treatment for infectious disease process effecting the spine. The Plan denied your request. The 
Plan says the enrollee's records do not show the need for continued treatments and care that can only be given 
in a hospital setting, continued care needs include intravenous antibiotics, supplemental oxygen, wound care, 
and physical/occupational therapy. When the enrollee is ready to leave the hospital, care may safely be received 
in another setting, a skilled nursing facility. 
 
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 
current acute care hospital. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute 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 restore 
functional status and continue to lead an active lifestyle. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
enrollee can safely receive the services they need in another setting such as at a skilled nursing facility or at 
home with home health services. 
 
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 requires an intensive inter-disciplinary 
coordinated rehabilitation program with a minimum of 3 hours active participation daily and is medically stable 
enough to no longer require the services of a medical/surgical inpatient setting. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says the enrollee's records do not show to have complex rehabilitation needs requiring frequent 
evaluation by a rehabilitation doctor and you do not need an intensive team for 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 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. 
 
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: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that the enrollee is not physically strong enough and 
doesn't have the mobility for in home release prior to rehab. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
services the enrollee requires can safely be received at a different setting such as home with home health, in 
residential care, or home with close follow-up with your doctor. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for care in a SNF when the four factors 
listed in the Medicare rules section are met. Custodial care is 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 SNF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested SNF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee does not have daily skilled nursing needs that require the specialized 
skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional nurse. The enrollee does have daily skilled therapy 
needs that require the specialized skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional therapist. The 
enrollee does not require daily skilled nursing and skilled therapy on an inpatient basis in a skilled nursing 
facility (SNF) 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 SNF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for a take-home supply of methadone; up to 7 additional day supply  
(code G2078) provided on December 26, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for a take-home supply of methadone; up to 7 additional day supply. You say that 
you have been enrolled in the Medicare program to provide Opioid Treatment Program (OTP) services since 
January 1, 2020. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the claim for these drugs was billed by the 
physician, not the opioid treatment program (OTP) facility. The rules say that only an entity enrolled with 
Medicare as an OTP can bill these codes. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare health plans must make reasonable and 
diligent efforts to gather and forward to the IRE information regarding its decision to deny coverage or 
payment. 
 
The Plan has not made reasonable and diligent efforts to gather and forward to us information regarding their 
decision to deny your request. Specifically, the OTP is the billing provider and is Substance Abuse and Mental 
Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) certified. The rules cited by the Plan do not provide a valid reason 
to deny this claim given that the OTP meets the Medicare coverage criteria. This provider continues to use the 
professional claim, which is allowed under Medicare rules. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for a 
take-home supply of methadone; up to 7 additional day supply (code G2078) provided on  
December 26, 2022.  
 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for medication assisted treatment, methadone; weekly bundle including 
dispensing and/or administration, substance use counseling, individual and group (code G2067) provided on 
December 12, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for medication assisted treatment, methadone; weekly bundle including dispensing 
and/or administration, substance use counseling, individual and group. You say that you have been enrolled in 
the Medicare program to provide Opioid Treatment Program (OTP) services since January 1, 2020. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says that the claim for these drugs was billed by the physician, not the opioid 
treatment program (OTP) facility. The rules say that only an entity enrolled with Medicare as an OTP can bill 
these codes. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare health plans must make reasonable and 
diligent efforts to gather and forward to the IRE information regarding its decision to deny coverage or 
payment. 
 
The Plan has not made reasonable and diligent efforts to gather and forward to us information regarding their 
decision to deny your request. Specifically, the OTP is the billing provider and is Substance Abuse and Mental 
Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) certified. The rules cited by the Plan do not provide a valid reason to deny this claim given that the OTP meets the Medicare coverage criteria. This provider continues to use the 
professional claim, which is allowed under Medicare rules. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for 
medication assisted treatment, methadone; weekly bundle including dispensing and/or administration, 
substance use counseling, individual and group (code G2067) provided on December 12, 2022.   
 
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.