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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a CardioMEMS system. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a CardioMEMS system. You say that the requested system has been 
demonstrated to be safe and effective. You say that recent data, the clinical study and the real-word evidence 
studies support the clinical benefit of remote hemodynamic monitoring. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says the criteria for coverage have 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 CardioMEMS system. Our reviewer 
says that a CardioMEMS system is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found there remains a dearth of randomized, blinded clinical studies examining long-term 
clinical outcomes establishing the value of CardioMEMS in patient management. 
 
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 CardioMEMS system have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve a CardioMEMS system.
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. 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. 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 documentation does not support that your nursing, medical and rehabilitation 
needs 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: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Tezspire. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Tezspire. You say that this is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says this is begin dispensed by a pharmacy. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that, in order to be eligible for coverage under Part B, 
drugs/biologicals must represent an expense to the rendering physician and be included in the physician's bill. 
 
In this case, we have confirmed that the requested medication will be dispensed by a pharmacy and will be 
brought to the office for administration. Since the medication does not represent an expense to the physician 
and will not be included in the physician's bill, it is not eligible for Part B coverage. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pre-approve Tezspire.  
 
Benefits for Tezspire 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: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve use of Evenity. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Evenity. You say that the enrollee needs this medication as soon as possible. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the denial of authorization for this drug is correct, because the 
Plan requires a trial of Prolia or Reclast before it will approve Evenity. 
 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 Evenity. Our reviewer says that the 
enrollee does not meet the Medicare criteria for a step therapy exception for Evenity. Our physician reviewer 
found the enrollee has not tried and failed the Plan's required drug of Prolia or Reclast. The record does not 
show that this drug would likely be less effective and/or 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 Evenity have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pre-approve use of Evenity.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve spinal fusion surgery. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve spinal fusion surgery. You say that this procedure is medically necessary for 
your condition. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says as your previous fusion was less than 12 months 
ago, this requested service is not medically necessary. 
 
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 spinal fusion surgery. Our reviewer 
says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found there is no spinal instability. In this case, more time is needed to try conservative 
measures as the previous fusion was only 12 months ago. There are no red flags for surgery at this time. The 
requested services are not medically reasonable and 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 spinal fusion surgery have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve spinal fusion surgery.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the core buildup, including any pins when required (D2950), 
crown (D2740), and resin-based composite (D2391) provided on March 17, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the core buildup, crown, and resin-based composite. You say that you do not 
agree with the Plan only offering a $1,000 allowance for dental services per year. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says you have met your allowance amount for the calendar year. 
 
Medicare generally does not cover dental services. However, the Plan offers a dental benefit that exceeds 
Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plan's coverage rules apply in this case. 
 
Though the Plan offers a dental benefit in excess of Medicare coverage, the Plan offers a $1,000 annual dental 
benefit maximum. The contract says that after your annual maximum benefit maximum has been met, you are 
responsible for the full charges of any additional dental services. The record shows that you met the annual 
maximum benefit on February 9, 2022, and your annual maximum benefit has been exhausted. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the core buildup, including any pins when required (D2950), 
crown (D2740), and resin-based composite (D2391) provided on March 17, 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 IRF care is recommended prior to returning home. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the Medicare criteria for admission to 
an IRF. 
 
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 the enrollees nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs 
does not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. 
Medical problems are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. While the documentation 
does support a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for an intensive, 
multi-disciplinary rehabilitation program. There is not a reasonable expectation that the enrollee 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 acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an office visit provided on January 12, 2022, by an out-of-
network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for an office visit. You say that you would like to request reconsideration of the 
denied claim. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the provider is out-of-network, and it was 
determined these services can be received in-network. 
 
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 an office visit provided on January 12, 2022, by an 
out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the genetic testing provided on October 19, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the testing. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services were billed 
incorrectly. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that if one laboratory procedure evaluates multiple 
genes using a next generation sequencing procedure, the laboratory shall report only one unit of service of one 
genomic sequencing procedure, molecular multianalyte assay, ultianalyte assay with algorithmic analysis, or 
proprietary laboratory analysis CPT code.  
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. In this case, the requested genetic testing was billed with multiple 
codes. Per Medicare rules, the testing should be reported with one unit of one CPT code. Based on this 
information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the testing have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the genetic testing provided on October 19, 2021.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for chiropractic services provided from December 29, 2021, to 
February 9, 2022, by an out-of-network provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for chiropractic services. You say that your past coverage allowed you to see a 
chiropractor without approval. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says these services are not covered 
because prior approval 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 chiropractic services provided from December 29, 
2021, to February 9, 2022, by an out-of-network provider.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve transurethral waterjet ablation of prostate. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve transurethral waterjet ablation of prostate. 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 follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that treatment for LUTS/BPH treatment will be 
considered reasonable and necessary when performed ONCE in patients that meet certain criteria. 
 
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 transurethral waterjet ablation of 
prostate. Our reviewer says that the services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the 
clinical value and effectiveness of Transurethral Waterjet Ablation of the Prostate in the setting of bladder 
calculus and clinically significant bladder diverticulum is considered not reasonable and necessary per CMS 
LCD L38549. The review has determined that the enrollee does not meet the coverage criteria detailed in the 
LCD. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of transurethral waterjet ablation of prostate have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve transurethral waterjet ablation of prostate.
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 ongoing medical needs 
warrant LTACH level of care to achieve a safe and sustainable discharge. The Plan denied your request. The 
Plan says criteria for admission to an LTACH has not been met. 
 
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 is receiving appropriate care at the present acute care hospital. 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 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: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the frames (V2020) provided on February 9, 2022 by an out-
of-network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the frames. You say that you thought you would be reimbursed. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says no prior authorization was received, and the treating facility is not contracted with 
your plan. 
 
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 
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 the frames (V2020) provided on February 9, 2022 
by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Testing
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 76705 billed for date of service February 7, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 76705. You say that the enrollee had multiple exams on the date 
in question. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says payment for code 76705 is bundled into payment for 
code 93976. 
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate CPT code. In this case, we have confirmed that code 76705 
is a column II code to column I code 93976. This claim has not been billed with an appropriate modifier to 
bypass the edit. Based on the claim submitted, Medicare billing criteria have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 76705 billed for date of service February 7, 
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 records provided support the need for 
LTACH care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the guidelines for coverage have not been met. The 
Plan says that the enrollee can safely receive the care needed in another setting. 
 
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 he/she is currently receiving care. All medically necessary care is being provided in the 
current acute care setting. The health plan has approved ongoing care 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: ER
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 99283 billed for date of service February 15, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 99283. You say that this claim was denied in error. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says payment for code 99283 is bundled into payment for code 99284. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate CPT code. In this case, we have confirmed that code 99283 
is a column II code to column I code 99284. This claim has not been billed with an appropriate modifier to 
bypass the edit. Based on the claim submitted, Medicare billing criteria have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 99283 billed for date of service February 15, 
2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for an urgent care visit provided on February 1, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for an urgent care visit. You say that no exam was done, you did 
not have to see the doctor, and you only had the coronavirus (COVID-19) test. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says you were charged the correct cost sharing amount. 
 
The rules say a plan must disclose to its enrollees in clear, accurate terms all cost sharing information (such as 
copayments, deductibles and coinsurance). Your contract with the Plan clearly says that you must pay a $50 
copayment for each Medicare-covered urgent care facility visit.  
 
 
 
 
 
 You have been asked to pay a $50 copayment an urgent care visit. An urgent care visit falls within the urgently 
needed 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 an urgent care visit 
provided on February 1, 2022.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the FoundationOne CDx (F1CDx) test (0037U) provided 
January 28, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the laboratory services. You say that the provision of F1CDx to the enrollee 
meets the requirements of the NCD and has been determined by CMS to be reasonable and necessary for the 
management of the enrollee's advanced cancer. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says does not meet 
Medicare NCD/LCD criteria. 
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that items and services that are not medically 
necessary are not covered.  
 
We looked at the file, and Medicare rules. The next generation sequence testing (NGS) testing panel performed 
included testing for the FANCC gene. Testing for this gene is not a Medicare benefit and is statutorily excluded 
service. In addition to single gene testing, panels that include the FANCC gene are statutorily excluded service. 
Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the laboratory services have not 
been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the FoundationOne CDx (F1CDx) test 
(0037U) provided January 28, 2022.