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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the outpatient office visit (99203) and nasal endoscopy 
(31231) provided on May 26, 2022, by an out-of-network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the outpatient office visit and nasal endoscopy. You say that you would like this 
denial to be reconsidered because you are on a fixed income, and cannot pay this bill. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says these services were rendered by an OON provider. The Plan also says you did not have a 
referral to see the treating 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 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 outpatient office visit (99203) and nasal 
endoscopy (31231) provided on May 26, 2022, by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that that the enrollee requires an LTACH 
admission for daily physician rounding and nursing care. You say that the enrollee's current needs cannot be 
met at a lower level of care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an LTACH admission is not 
medically necessary, and the enrollee can safely receive the care they need in current hospital 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 that the enrollee is more stable and should only require short-term additional acute 
care services that can safely be administered at the current facility. The enrollee does not require services at the 
LTACH that are not already available at the current facility. 
 
   
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve LTACH services.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee will require an acute inpatient rehab 
hospital that will provide 24 - hour rehab nursing supervision as well as physician oversight at minimum of 3 
days per week to manage the enrollee venous thromboembolism mitigation, chronic kidney disease, and 
diabetes. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an IRF admission is not medically necessary, and the 
services the enrollee's needs can be provided safely in other settings. 
 
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 enrollees medical problems are stable and there are no complex nursing or 
rehabilitation needs. 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 IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for an infusion therapy provided on August 29, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for infusion therapy. You say that you are disputing the share cost. 
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 $295 
copayment for outpatient surgery and other medical services provided at hospital outpatient facilities and 
ambulatory surgical centers.  
 
You have been asked to pay $189.84 which is less than the $295 copayment for infusion therapy. This 
item/service falls within the outpatient surgery and other medical services provided at hospital outpatient 
facilities and ambulatory surgical centers 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 infusion therapy provided on August 29, 2022.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve SNF care. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that it is medically necessary that the enrollee receive 
SNF care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the criteria for SNF admission were not meet. 
 
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 that 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 not 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/or 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 SNF care.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a FreeStyle Libre 2 continuous glucose monitor (CGM). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a FreeStyle Libre 2 CGM. You say that you disagree with the Plan's denial. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet criteria for the requested device. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that therapeutic CGMs are considered medically 
reasonable and necessary for enrollees with diabetes who use insulin with at least three daily administrations, 
require frequent self-adjustment of insulin dosage based on the blood glucose testing results and have had an 
in-person visit with their treating physician to assess adherence to their CGM regimen and diabetes treatment 
plan. 
 
 
 We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The documentation indicates that the enrollee does not use insulin 
with at least three daily injections. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of a 
FreeStyle Libre 2 CGM have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a 
FreeStyle Libre 2 continuous glucose monitor (CGM).
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 you are unable to walk due to liquid build up in her 
body and being sent home would not be beneficial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says your therapy 
needs are neither complex nor intensive and can be safely fulfilled at home with home health rehabilitation. 
 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 you do not have daily skilled nursing needs that require the specialized skill, 
knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional nurse. You do not have daily skilled therapy needs that 
require the specialized skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional therapist. You do not require 
daily skilled nursing or 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a FreeStyle Libre 2 sensor. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a FreeStyle Libre 2 sensor. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you 
do not meet the criteria for coverage. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that therapeutic CGMs are considered medically 
reasonable and necessary for enrollees with diabetes who use insulin with at least three daily administrations, 
require frequent self-adjustment of insulin dosage based on the blood glucose testing results and have had an 
in-person visit with their treating physician to assess adherence to their CGM regimen and diabetes treatment 
plan. 
 
 
 We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The documentation indicates that you do not use insulin with at least 
three daily injections or require frequent self-adjustment of insulin dosage based on the blood glucose testing 
results. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of a FreeStyle Libre 2 sensor 
have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a FreeStyle Libre 2 
sensor.
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 medically necessary for the enrolle's 
medical condition. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services the enrollee needs can be provided 
safely in another setting, such as a skilled nursing facility. 
 
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's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not require an acute 
hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies, the is not a reasonable expectation that this patient will benefit from the 
intensive rehabilitation therapy 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 inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a primary closure of a sinus perforation (D7261), primary 
closure of a sinus perforation (D7210), and consultation - diagnostic service provided by dentist or physician 
(D9310) provided on February 26, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the dental services. You say that when you went to the dental office, they took 
your ID card and never told you they were out-of-network. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
dental services were received from an out-of-network provider and are not covered by your supplemental 
benefits. 
 
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. 
 
The record shows you received the requested dental services from an out-of-network provider. Though the Plan 
offers a dental benefit in excess of Medicare coverage, the requested items or services are not covered under 
this benefit when received from an out-of-network provider.  Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a primary closure of a sinus perforation (D7261), 
primary closure of a sinus perforation (D7210), and consultation - diagnostic service provided by dentist or 
physician (D9310) provided on February 26, 2022.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that you strongly feel that the enrollee will 
need LTACH care for them to regain maximum level of health and functions. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says an LTACH admission is not medically necessary, and the enrollee can safely receive the services 
they need 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 that the enrollee is still unstable and requires short-term additional acute care hospital 
services that can be safely provided at the current facility until they are more appropriate for transfer. 
 
   
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve LTACH services.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the crown (D2740) and the core build-up (D2950). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the core build-up (D2950). You say that the enrollee needs the requested 
services, or they will not be able to save the tooth and it will need to be extracted entirely. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the service is not a covered benefit. 
 
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, the requested items or services are not 
among those covered under this benefit. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the 
crown (D2740) and the core build-up (D2950).
Appeal type: Outpatient Therapies
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve physical therapy to be provided by an out-of-network 
(OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve physical therapy. You say that the out-of-network provider is closer in 
distance to enrollee's home. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says requested services can be provided 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 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 to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve a LivingSkin Partial Hand Prosthesis with thumb stabilizer. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve these services. You say that you disagree with the denial. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says that the services are not medically necessary. 
 
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 these services. Our reviewer says that 
the services are medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has a left-sided thumb 
amputation and requires a prosthesis to perform daily acitivites. The amputation site has healed. While a 
suspension type of system would be more cost-effective, it is not an option. The enrollee requires a prosthesis 
with a glove-like design that allows for opposition and stabilization of the prosthetic digit. It is clinically 
appropriate. The silicone unit is not cosmetic in nature and allows for function and use of the enrollees left 
hand and residual thumb. The services are reasonable and 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 these services have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-
approve a LivingSkin Partial Hand Prosthesis with thumb stabilizer.  
 
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: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has 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 meets the criteria for needing inpatient 
rehabilitation and is motivated to participate in all therapies in order to return to her prior level of functioning. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that 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 found to be medically reasonable and necessary for this enrollee. Our physician reviewer 
found the complexity of the enrollee's nursing and medical and rehabilitation needs does require an acute 
hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. Medical and rehabilitation 
needs do require the intensive interdisciplinary approach on acute inpatient rehabilitation. The enrollee has had 
a significant decline from her baseline level of function and would benefit from the intensity of therapies on 
acute inpatient rehabilitation. 
 
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 been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-approve 
acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.  
 
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: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the Hepatitis A vaccine (90), Hepatitis B vaccine (90), and 
administration (G0010) provided on September 20, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the immunizations. You say that you would like your request for payment of the 
Hepatitis A vaccine to be submitted to your Part D coverage. You also say that payment for the Hepatitis B 
services should be resubmitted to your Part B coverage. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the claim 
processed correctly. 
 
In the absence of injury or direct exposure to illness, Medicare does not pay for or provide the immunizations. 
The Plan follows the same rules.  
 
Records do not show that you have been injured or directly exposed to any illness related to the immunizations. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the Hepatitis A vaccine (90), Hepatitis B vaccine 
(90), and administration (G0010) provided on September 20, 2022.  
 
Benefits for the immunizations may be available under Medicare Part D. Contact the Plan that administers Part 
D benefits for further information concerning any benefits and appeal rights.