Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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 this is medically necessary, and medical records 
were for submitted for review. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the record does not show that you 
require daily skilled nursing or skilled therapy in a SNF setting. 
 
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 there are no identifiable skilled therapy or nursing service needs. You do not 
require skilled nursing or therapy services on a daily basis. You do not meet severity of illness or intensity of 
service criteria for an inpatient basis in a skilled nursing facility 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: 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 enrollee was admitted for total knee replacement on March 29, 2023, and has 
been discharged home. Medical problems are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. The 
enrollee 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 
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 pre-approve ultrasound guided radiation therapy (G6001). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve US-IGRT. You say that treatment is medically necessary for the enrollee. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request does not meet the Medicare or health plan coverage 
criteria. 
 
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 US-IGRT. Our reviewer says that the 
requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found IGRT is a means to improve set-up accuracy. IGRT uses daily image guidance to help localize 
the target to minimize normal tissue dosing. Specifically, IGRT allows accuracy of treatment delivery, so when 
generating a planning target margin, the margins can be reduced, and thus allow reduction in the volume of 
normal tissues exposed to radiation. Usually, IGRT is used when critical structures are abutting or in close 
proximity to the target that is being treated to high doses. This situation does not apply to this enrollee for 
which the target lesion can be seen on the skin to assist in daily set up. When treating skin cancers, there is 
generally not a need for IGRT unless deep structures are being treated. Certainly, using ultrasound on a daily 
basis is not unreasonable to offer but not necessary. The device itself is FDA approved for use with ultrasound 
though that in and of itself does not mean that daily imaging is necessary but simply that the device was 
designed to incorporate this functionality. Therefore, to bill for daily simple simulations (77280- also requested 
in this case) and/or IGRT for a technology for which need has not been established by published data or 
supported by consensus guidelines (many of which recommend against treatment with these devices in general) 
is not necessary. The decision is unfavorable as billing for daily IGRT which would not be furnished in 
accordance with accepted standards of medical practice. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of US-IGRT have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve ultrasound guided radiation therapy (G6001).
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 services are medically necessary for 
the enrollee's complex medical needs. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee is receiving 
appropriate inpatient acute care and is currently unstable for transfer to an LTACH. 
 
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 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 health plan has approved ongoing care 
in the current acute care 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 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: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for SNF care provided from September 12, 2022, to September 
30, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for SNF care. You say that the enrollee would like reconsideration because the 
services are medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee no longer had 
skilled nursing facility needs. 
 
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 pay for 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 or skilled therapy on an inpatient basis in a 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 pay for SNF care provided from September 12, 2022, to September 30, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Spravato 84MG DOS solution. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a prescription medication. You say that you disagree with the denial. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says Spravato is a self-administered drug. Based on this information, 
medication does not fall under Part B coverage. 
 
 
 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 Spravato 84MG DOS 
solution.
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 do not feel skilled nursing facility care will help 
you to return to your prior level of function. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says your therapy services 
can be delivered at a lower level of care 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 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: 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 has had a complex hospital 
stay and you feel that LTACH is the best level of care for the enrollee's medical needs. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the services the enrollee needs could be provided in another setting, such as an acute 
rehabilitation facility, skilled nursing facility, nursing facility, outpatient setting or home care. 
 
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 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 health plan has approved ongoing care 
in the current acute care 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 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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the abdominal paracentesis provided on September 29, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the abdominal paracentesis. You say that the records provided support medical 
necessity. 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 abdominal 
paracentesis provided on September 29, 2022.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the x-rays of the upper gastrointestinal tract provided on 
February 18, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the x-rays of the upper gastrointestinal tract. You say that the records provided 
support medical necessity. 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 x-rays of the upper 
gastrointestinal tract provided on February 18, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the cost sharing for the radiation therapy services provided by 
an out-of-network provider from July 26, 2022, to September 12, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the cost sharing for the radiation therapy services. You say that you were not 
aware that this provider was out-of-network. 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 40% 
coinsurance for each out-of-network Medicare-covered radiation (radium and isotope) therapy service, 
including technician materials and supplies. 
 
 
 
 
 You have been asked to pay a $5165.20 coinsurance for the radiation therapy services ($12,913.25 allowed 
amount x .40 = $5165.20 rounded down). The Plan is only holding you responsible for a $31.31 coinsurance 
for the service on August 11, 2022, which is less than the 40% coinsurance. These items/services fall within the 
outpatient diagnostic tests and therapeutic services and 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. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to waive the cost sharing for the radiation therapy services provided by an out-of-network provider from July 
26, 2022, to September 12, 2022.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an ablation of the breast provided on August 24, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for an ablation of the breast. You say that this was medically necessary and should 
be covered. You thought this provider was in-network. 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 ablation of the breast 
provided on August 24, 2022.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for the nail debridement procedure provided on 
November 29, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for the nail debridement procedure. You say that this should be 
considered routine foot care. 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 $30 
copayment for podiatry services provided in a specialists office. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $30 copayment for the nail debridement procedure. This item/service falls within 
the podiatry services provided in a specialists office 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 records show that this service was not considered routine foot 
care. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for the nail debridement 
procedure provided on November 29, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an office visit provided on November 3, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the office visit. You say that you are a non-participating provider with Medicare. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says Medicare guidelines clearly state that Medicare Advantage Plans 
may not make payment for services performed by providers who have opted out of the Medicare Program, with 
the exception of emergency and urgently needed services. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that no Medicare payment may be made to a beneficiary 
for items or services provided directly by a physician or practitioner who has opted out of the program except 
in cases involving emergencies or urgently needed care. 
 
The services at issue in this appeal were provided in a non-urgent, non-emergent situation by the provider who 
has opted out of the Medicare program. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an office 
visit provided on November 3, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the podiatry services provided on September 28, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the podiatry services. You say that you were unaware that the pandemic waiver 
for authorizations had been lifted. 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 podiatry services 
provided on September 28, 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 services are medically necessary for 
the enrollee to receive the proper level of care needed and has already failed at a lower level. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says LTACH level of care is not medically necessary. 
 
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 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 health plan has approved ongoing care 
in the current acute care 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 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.