Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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 you need rehab to get stronger before returning 
home. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services you need can be provided safely in another 
setting such as a skilled nursing facility, home with home health services or home with outpatient therapy. 
 
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 do 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an office visit provided on November 01, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for an office visit. You say that you are appealing with supporting records. 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 provided 
on November 01, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a subsequent nursing facility care visit provided on 
November 15, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for a subsequent nursing facility care visit. You say that the facility is responsible for 
obtaining prior authorization. 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 a subsequent nursing 
facility care visit provided on November 15, 2022.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee requires these services to maximize 
function and independence. The enrollee's needs are unable to be met in a lower level of care. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the enrollee would likely benefit from ongoing therapy to enhance their 
rehabilitation potential, but there is no evidence that this cannot safely be done 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. 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: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health services (G0151, G0299, G0300, Q5002) 
provided from June 20, 2022, to July 20, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the home health services as billed. You say that the services should be covered as 
you disagree with the denial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the claim has not been billed with 
the correct admission date. 
 
  The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that for home health services that are continuing from 2021, a 
NOA must be submitted for the first period of care in 2022, using the first date of the period as the admission 
date. Subsequent claims must report this new date as the admission date in order for the claim to be matched to 
the correct NOA.  
 
We reviewed the file and the Medicare rules. We find that the admission date reported on the claim at issue 
does not match the date for the NOA which is filed for the first date in 2022 as required. Based on this 
information, we find that the Medicare rules for payment of the claim at issue have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health services (G0151, G0299, G0300, Q5002) 
provided from June 20, 2022, to July 20, 2022.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the coinsurance for Medicare Part B prescription drugs 
provided on November 07, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the coinsurance for Medicare Part B prescription drugs. You say that you disagree 
with the coinsurance.. 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 20% 
coinsurance for Medicare Part B prescription drugs. 
 
You have been asked to pay 20% coinsurance for Medicare Part B prescription drugs. This item/service falls 
within the Medicare Part B prescription drugs 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 coinsurance 
for Medicare Part B prescription drugs provided on November 07, 2022.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the coinsurance for durable medical equipment (DME) 
provided on September 07, 2022, to October 06, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the coinsurance for durable medical equipment (DME). You say that you disagree 
with the coinsurance.. 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 20% 
coinsurance for durable medical equipment (DME). 
 
You have been asked to pay 20% coinsurance for durable medical equipment (DME). This item/service falls 
within the durable medical equipment (DME) 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 coinsurance 
for durable medical equipment (DME) provided on September 07, 2022, to October 06, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for debridement procedure of the skin provided on September 
27, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for debridement procedure of the skin. You say that these services were medically 
neccesary. 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 debridement procedure 
of the skin provided on September 27, 2022.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for dental fillings (D2394, D2393) provided on November 11, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the dental services. You say that the services should be covered as you disagree 
with the charges. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says your $750 dental benefit maximum allowance 
for the requested item or service has already been exhausted. 
 
Medicare generally does not cover dental services. However, the Plan offers a dental benefit that exceeds 
Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plans coverage rules apply in this case. 
 
 
  Though the Plan offers a dental benefit in excess of Medicare coverage, certain limitations apply. The record 
shows your benefit for the requested item or service was exhausted on date of service November 11, 2022. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for dental fillings (D2394, D2393) provided on 
November 11, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a nursing facility visit provided on November 08, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for a nursing facility visit. You say that the facility is responsible for obtaining prior 
authorization. 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 a nursing facility visit 
provided on November 08, 2022.
Appeal type: Testing
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for an ultrasound provided on October 06, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for an ultrasound. You say that you disagree with the copaymet. 
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 $50 
copayment for outpatient diagnostic tests/Medicare-covered standard x-ray and ultrasound. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $50 copayment for an ultrasound. This item/service falls within the outpatient 
diagnostic tests/Medicare-covered standard x-ray and ultrasound 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 ultrasound provided on October 06, 2022.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the intraoral radiographic image (D0210) provided on 
September 26, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the dental service. You say that you are appealing the denied dental service. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says your benefit for the requested item or service has already been 
exhausted. 
 
Medicare generally does not cover dental services. However, the Plan offers a dental benefit that exceeds 
Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plans coverage rules apply in this case. 
 
  Though the Plan offers a dental benefit in excess of Medicare coverage, certain limitations apply. The record 
shows your benefit for the requested item or service was exhausted on the date of service of February 2, 2022. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the intraoral radiographic image (D0210) provided 
on September 26, 2022.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the member would benefit from sub-acute 
rehabilitation services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services requested are not medically 
necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
 
  We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found Clinical documentation shows that active medical issues and complex functional 
impairments have resolved thus the complexity of the enrollee's documented nursing, medical and 
rehabilitation needs would not be expected to require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary 
approach to rehabilitation care. Additionally, evaluating therapists recommend ongoing skilled therapy on an 
intermittent basis thus IRF criteria not met. 
 
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 a wound care visit provided on October 27, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for a wound care visit. You say that this was medically necessary and should be 
covered. 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 a wound care visit 
provided on October 27, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the back injection provided on August 10, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the back injection. You say that the services were medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says that unauthorized, out-of-network care is not covered. 
 
Medicare rules say that plans can require enrollees to get care from network providers. The contract with the 
Plan says that the Plan has to pay for care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving emergencies, 
out of area urgent care and pre-approved care. 
 
The provider of the item(s)/service(s) at issue in this appeal is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan 
did not pre-approve the item(s)/service(s) at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay for the item(s)/service(s). Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the back injection 
provided on August 10, 2022.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a bitewing x-ray (D0274) provided on October 31, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the dental services. You say that the services should be covered as you disagree 
with the denial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says your benefit for the requested item or service has 
already been exhausted. 
 
Medicare generally does not cover dental services. However, the Plan offers a dental benefit that exceeds 
Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plans coverage rules apply in this case. 
 
 
  Though the Plan offers a dental benefit in excess of Medicare coverage, certain limitations apply. The record 
shows your benefit for the requested item or service was exhausted on date of service February 10, 2022. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a bitewing x-ray (D0274) provided on October 31, 
2022.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the coinsurance for the walker provided on November 08, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the coinsurance for the walker. You say that you did not receive a walker. 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 20% 
coinsurance for durable medical equipment (DME) and related supplies. 
 
You have been asked to pay 20% coinsurance for the walker. This item/service falls within the durable medical 
equipment (DME) and related supplies 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 total you owe is $18.13 ($90.65 allowed x 20% = $18.13). Therefore, 
we decided that the Plan does not have to waive the coinsurance for the walker provided on November 08, 
2022.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the SSBCI benefits. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the SSBCI benefits. You say that you feel you are eligible for the SSBCI 
benefits. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you do not meet the criteria to be eligible for SSBCI 
benefits. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that there is a special supplemental benefit for 
enrollees with an eligible chronic condition.  
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of the SSBCI benefits have not been met. Specifically, we have confirmed that you do not have one 
of the eligible conditions listed in the Evidence of Coverage. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve the special supplemental benefits for the chronically ill (SSBCI).
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a chiropractic visit provided on November 17, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for a chiropractic visit. You say that this was medically necessary and should be 
covered. We would like this reconsidered. 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 a chiropractic visit 
provided on November 17, 2022.
Appeal type: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the coinsurance for the ambulance services provided on May 
17, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the coinsurance for the ambulance services. You say that there were no in-network 
ambulance services available. 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 30% 
coinsurance for ambulance services (out-of-network). 
 
You have been asked to pay 30% coinsurance for the ambulance services. This item/service falls within the 
ambulance services (out-of-network) 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 coinsurance for 
the ambulance services provided on May 17, 2022.