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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for laboratory services provided on May 27, 2021, by an out-of-
network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for laboratory services. You say that this test was medically necessary and 
reasonable. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says these services were not pre-approved, nor were they 
referred by a network provider. 
 
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 referring 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 laboratory services provided on May 27, 2021, by 
an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you are requesting IRF services so the enrollee can 
return safely to their prior level of function and/or maximum potential. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says rules for IRF care have not been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found there are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. While the enrollee has a need 
for physical or occupational therapy, there is no documentation of a need for an intensive rehabilitation 
program. 
 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 IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you are requesting reconsideration stating the 
enrollee has had a significant change in medical status since the prior request for acute inpatient rehabilitation 
was made. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says based on Medicare guidelines, the inpatient 
rehabilitation facility services you are requesting do not meet the requirements for approval. 
 
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 was admitted for surgical repair of a hip fracture after a fall. Medical 
problems are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. While the enrollee has a need for 
physical or occupational therapy, there is no documentation of a need for an intensive rehabilitation program. 
 
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 IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a right lower extremity angiography. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a right lower extremity angiography. 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 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 a right lower extremity angiography. 
Our reviewer says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in 
this case. Our physician reviewer found the documentation does not support the medical necessity of the 
treatment in question. You have numerous comorbidities including emphysema and chronic kidney disease. 
Your leg pain requires the use of a walker. You state that you are willing to stop smoking. The details of your 
walking limitation are not documented. It is unclear if you are limited by shortness of breath and claudication 
rarely requires the use of a walker unless there are other etiologies present. There is no acquired brain injury 
(ABI) provided. The only objective study provided is a computed tomography angiography (CTA) describing 
no significant stenosis bilaterally. There does not appear to be any effort to treat conservatively particularly in 
that you have articulated a commitment to stop smoking. The degree of your kidney disease is not clear (more 
contrast is being considered). Agree with health plan determination. We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of a right lower extremity angiography have not been met. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a right lower extremity angiography.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for hospital services provided on February 21, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for hospital 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 hospital services provided on February 21, 2022.
Appeal type: Outpatient Therapies
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve physical therapy services to be provided by an out-of-
network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve physical therapy services. You say that the requested services are a medical 
necessity for you. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says rules for coverage for OON care have not been 
met. 
 
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 
physical therapy services to be provided by an OON provider.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for an office visit provided on June 1, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for the office visit. You say that you went to get an updated eye 
glass prescription so that you could purchase new glasses and you reluctantly paid the copayment. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the claim processed with the correct copayment 
 
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 $45 
copayment for Vision Care.  
 
You have been asked to pay a $45 copayment for the office visit. The office visit falls within the Vision 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 an office visit provided on  
June 1, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve image guided radiation therapy (IGRT). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the requested services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the 
requested service is not medically necessary for this enrollee's clinical situation. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that if there are no specific coverage rules for an item 
or service, then that item or service will be covered when it is medically necessary.  
 
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 in this case, the intent is to deliver very high ablative radiation doses to the only site of 
active disease for which image-guidance is generally considered necessary. IGRT can be considered medically 
necessary when it is necessary to escalate the dose for oligometastases or oligoprogression, particularly when 
using very high dose per fraction, or when critical normal tissues abutting the target necessitate daily image 
guidance to allow minimal planning margins to spare the normal tissue. The determination is favorable for 
IGRT as a means to improve set-up accuracy, and thereby avoiding additional irradiation of surrounding tissue 
such as the enrollees rectum, bowel, bladder, and left femoral head. 
 
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 been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to 
pre-approve image guided radiation therapy (IGRT).  
 
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 acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that these services are medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says that your ongoing skilled therapy and nursing needs can be provided at a 
lower level of care. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. The 
complexity of your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. You were admitted for shoulder replacement surgery. 
Your medical problems are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. You do not require 
treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive 
rehabilitation therapy program. While the medical record supports a need for physical 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. Our physician 
reviewer found that your condition does not meet Medicare criteria for IRF 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: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Oxervate for the enrollee. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve this drug. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says that this is not covered under Part B. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare Part B generally does not pay for self-
administered drugs. The self-administered drugs requested here are not among the types which are covered by 
Medicare Part B. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Oxervate for the enrollee.  
 
Benefits for this drug may be available under Medicare Part D. Contact the Plan that administers Part D 
benefits for further information concerning any benefits and appeal rights.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a knee orthosis (L1852, L1851). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the knee orthosis. You say that the orthosis is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says coverage criteria has not been met. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that a knee immobilizer without joints, or a knee orthosis 
with adjustable knee joints, or a knee orthosis, with an adjustable flexion and extension joint that provides both 
medial-lateral and rotation control, are covered if the beneficiary has had recent injury to or a surgical 
procedure on the knee(s) or when knee instability is documented by examination of the beneficiary and 
objective description of joint laxity. 
 
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 reviewer says 
that the knee orthosis is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has not had recent 
surgery or a recent injury. The documentation doesnt support that the joint is unstable or that there is 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 a knee orthosis (L1852, L1851).
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 requested admission to an IRF is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested admission to an IRF does not meet 
criteria. 
 
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 your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not require an 
acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. You were admitted for a 
fall, liver abscess and bacteremia. You do not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical 
therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While the medical record 
supports a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, 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. 
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 for the enrollee. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that these services are medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says that the enrollee's ongoing skilled therapy and nursing needs can be 
provided at a lower level of care. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. The 
complexity of the patient's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The patient was admitted for a pelvic abscess and 
aspiration pneumonia. The enrollees medical problems are stable. There are no complex nursing or 
rehabilitation needs. The patient does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical 
therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While the medical record 
supports a need for physical 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 this patient will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive 
rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF. Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee's condition 
does not meet Medicare criteria for IRF 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 for the enrollee.
Appeal type: Other
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Procrit, injection, epoetin alfa, (for non-esrd use), 1000 
units J0885. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Procrit. You say that the records support the necessity of the requested drug. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the Plan's coverage criteria. 
 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 Procrit. Our reviewer says that the 
requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found the Plan requires a trial of drug Aranesp before they will approve the requested drug. In this 
case, the enrollee has not tried and failed the required drug(s). There is no documentation provided indicating 
that the plans 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 Procrit have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pre-approve Procrit, injection, epoetin alfa, (for non-esrd use), 1000 units J0885.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you prefer to admit to acute rehabilitation because 
you were independent before your hospitalization and want to return to being independent. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says based on Medicare guidelines, the inpatient rehabilitation facility services you are 
requesting do not meet the requirements for approval. 
 
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 you were admitted for surgical management of back pain. Medical problems are 
stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. While you have a need for physical or 
occupational therapy, there is no documentation of a need for an intensive rehabilitation program. 
 
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 IRF admission and services.