Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve ultrasonic guidance for image-guided radiation therapy 
(IGRT). 
 
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 the services are 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 these services. Our reviewer says that 
the services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the use of ultrasonic guidance for IGRT 
is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), although that in and of itself does not mean that daily 
imaging is necessary but simply that the device was designed to incorporate this functionality. The need for 
daily simple simulations and/or IGRT has not been established by published data or supported by consensus guidelines. The services are not the standard of care and are not reasonable or 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 not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve ultrasonic guidance for image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT).
Appeal type: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to reduce the copayment for the ambulance transportation provided on 
January 19, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to reduce the copayment for the ambulance transportation. You say that $300 copayment 
per date of service regardless of the number of trips 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 $300 
copayment for ambulance services. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $300 copayment for the ambulance transportation. This item/service falls within 
the ambulance 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 reduce the copayment for the 
ambulance transportation provided on January 19, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the acupuncture treatments (97810, 97811) provided on  
July 29, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for these services. You say that you are requesting a reconsideration of the Plan's 
denial for payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says these services are not payable as they were 
rendered by an ineligible provider.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare payment cannot be made to a provider that is 
not enrolled in the Medicare program. 
 
 
  
 
 
A review of the file and Medicare records indicates that you are not enrolled in the Medicare program. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the acupuncture treatments (97810, 97811) 
provided on July 29, 2022.
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 you are requesting an expedited reconsideration 
stating the enrollee's clinical condition meets full inpatient acute rehabilitation criteria and a lower level of care 
cannot provide the care needed. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the enrollee does not meet the 
medical necessity 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 found to be medically reasonable and necessary for this enrollee. Our physician reviewer 
found the complexity of the enrollee's documented nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs would be expected 
to require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The clinical 
documentation shows that the enrollee requires ongoing physical, occupational and speech therapy, and 
evaluating therapists recommend ongoing intensive therapy. Speech-language pathology documents that the 
enrollee may require further fiberoptic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) which may not be available in other 
rehabilitation care settings. 
 
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: 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 will benefit from LTACH 
services that cannot be provided at another level of care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
LTACH services requested do not meet the requirements for approval. 
 
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 is receiving acute hospital care, and acute care services have not been 
denied. The documentation shows there are no required medical services identified that are available at the 
LTACH, that are not available at the current health care setting being offered by the health plan. 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 pre-approve an Intracept intraosseous ablation of the basivertebral 
nerve. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the requested services. You say that the pain affects the enrollee's quality of 
life.  The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the service is considered experimental.  
 
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 the requested services. Our physician 
reviewer found that the records do not contain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) that shows only modic 
endplate changes without evidence of facet degenerative joint disease or foraminal stenosis. Therefore, the 
request is not 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 the requested services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve an Intracept intraosseous ablation of the basivertebral nerve.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Docetaxel 1 milligram (MG), Nivolumab and 
Gemcitabine. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Docetaxel 1 MG, Nivolumab and Gemcitabine. You say that the services 
are medically necessary for the enrollee's treatment.  The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
guidelines do not support using these drugs together as a treatment for the type of cancer the enrollee has.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare may pay for unlabeled uses for anti-cancer 
drugs if they are medically accepted as safe and effective or appropriate for the particular use.  
 
 
 
 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 Docetaxel 1 MG, Nivolumab and 
Gemcitabine. Our reviewer says that the medications being requested is not medically necessary. Our physician 
reviewer found the requested use of Docetaxel 1 MG, Nivolumab and Gemcitabine is not FDA approved for 
the enrollee's diagnoses. The requested medication is not supported by one of the major drug compendia's or by 
clinical research that appears in the CMS-approved medical journals.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Docetaxel 1 milligram (MG), Nivolumab and Gemcitabine have not been met. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Docetaxel 1 milligram (MG), Nivolumab and 
Gemcitabine.
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 you are requesting an expedited 
reconsideration for the denial of an LTACH admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
request for coverage for admission to an LTACH 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 is no evidence that the enrollee requires services that are not currently 
available. The enrollee can remain at the current acute care hospital until such time no acute services are 
required. The enrollee can then be transferred or discharged to a lower level of care for any ongoing long-term 
care needs. 
 
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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a semi-electric hospital bed (E0260).  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a semi-electric hospital bed. You say that  The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says the current notes provided do not show that the enrollee meets criteria for coverage.  
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that a semi-electric hospital bed may be considered 
medically necessary when the patient: 
 
1. Has a medical condition which requires positioning of the body in ways not feasible with an ordinary bed; or 
 
2. Requires attachments which can only be attached to a hospital bed; AND 
 
3. Requires frequent changes in body position and/or has an immediate need for a change in body position. 
 
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 semi-electric hospital bed. Our 
reviewer says that this item is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee has 
difficulty ambulating due to obesity and right knee pain. The enrollee may require a walker for assistance with 
ambulation, but does not have significantly impaired bed mobility. The documentation does not indicate that 
the enrollee is unable to re-position while in bed and requires frequent re-positioning or an immediate change 
in position, which is required for a semi-electric hospital bed versus a standard hospital bed. The enrollee is 
also not noted to have a condition or require elevation of the head of the bed greater than 30 degrees. 
Therefore, the requested semi-electric hospital bed (E0260) is not 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 a semi-electric hospital bed have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve a semi-electric hospital bed (E0260).
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. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says they will continue to cover acute level care at the 
current hospital.  
 
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 they are currently receiving care. All medically necessary care is being provided 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: 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 you are requesting an expedited 
reconsideration stating LTACH is the appropriate level of care for this enrollee, and they are medically stable 
to be transferred to the LTACH level of care at this time. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
LTACH services requested do not meet the requirements for approval. 
 
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 they are currently receiving care. The 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a pneumatic compressor, segmental home model 
without calibrated gradient pressure (E0651) and a segmental pneumatic appliance for use with pneumatic 
compressor, full leg (E0667) to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a pneumatic compressor and an appliance. You say that the requested item 
is medically necessary for the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the records received do not 
indicate that the enrollee has an emergent or urgent medical condition or are in need of specialized service(s) 
that are not available in the network. The enrollee has an HMO plan. There are in-network provider(s) that can 
provide this item. 
 
 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 
a pneumatic compressor, segmental home model without calibrated gradient pressure (E0651) and a segmental 
pneumatic appliance for use with pneumatic compressor, full leg (E0667) to be provided by an out-of-network 
(OON) provider.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve implant placement (D6010), custom abutment (D6057), 
abutment supported porcelain/ceramic crown (D6058). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve implant placement, custom abutment, and a crown. You say that this should 
be covered. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this is not a covered service. 
 
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 
implant placement (D6010), custom abutment (D6057), abutment supported porcelain/ceramic crown (D6058).
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an office visit provided on January 25, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for an office visit. You say that you need pain management and need 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). There are other providers who are in-network. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pay for an office visit provided on January 25, 2023.
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 records provided support medical necessity. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the IRF services you are requesting do not meet the requirements for 
approval. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical, and rehabilitation needs does not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. 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. 
 
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.