Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a portable ventilator (E0466) to be provided by an out-
of-network (OON) provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a portable ventilator. You say that you have submitted additional overnight 
capnography testing performed on November 14, 2023, proving that the enrollee has high carbon dioxide. The 
enrollee needs the requested equipment to prevent hospitalization. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 
the enrollee must use network providers to get her medical care and services. This device may be obtained from 
an in-network 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 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 portable ventilator (E0466) to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a home ventilator. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the home ventilator. You say that the medical records provided support the 
need for the requested home ventilator.  The Plan denied your request. The Plan says  a home ventilator is not 
medically necessary for the enrollee because their needs can be met with an alternative device such as a BiPAP 
device with average volume-assured pressure support (AVAPS).  
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that ventilators may be covered when they are medically 
necessary for patients who have neuromuscular disease, thoracic restrictive diseases, and chronic respiratory 
failure due to COPD. Claims for ventilators used to provide CPAP or bi-level CPAP therapy will be denied as 
not reasonable and 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 the home ventilator. Our reviewer says 
that the home ventilator is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has been 
compliant with CPAP and since hospitalization may benefit from escalations to BiPAP. There is no indication 
that BiPAP has failed nor the indication from home ventilator per documentation. Hence, not a candidate for 
home ventilator per best 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 the home ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a home ventilator.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the COVID-19 test provided on June 26, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the COVID-19 test. You say that you want to be reimbursed payment. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the item is not covered benefits. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare does not pay for OTC items and the 
COVID-19 test is an OTC item. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the COVID-19 
test provided on June 26, 2023.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve periodontal scaling and root planing - four or more teeth 
per quadrant (D4341). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve periodontal scaling and root planing. You say that this is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the criteria for scaling and root planing 4 or more teeth 
(D4341) have not been met for the upper left and lower left quadrants because x-rays show only 3 teeth with 
bone loss and exposed root surfaces in these quadrants. 
 
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 Plan covers periodontal 
scaling and root planing when the services are medically necessary and reasonable.  
 
 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 periodontal scaling and root planing. 
Our reviewer says that the service is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found due to the quality 
of the x-rays; it was hard to determine whether there was evident bone loss. Based on the information provided, 
the criteria for D4341 have not been met, and D4342 is more reasonable as there is evident bone loss around 
the posterior teeth on the left side of the enrollees mouth, notation of inflammation/bleeding, and radiographic 
tarter. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
the Plan's rules for coverage of periodontal scaling and root planing have not been met. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan does not have to pre-approve periodontal scaling and root planing - four or more teeth per 
quadrant (D4341).
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a 24-hour private duty nursing services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a 24-hour private duty nursing services. You say that it is medically 
necessary that you receive 24-hour personal care to prevent future hospitalizations. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says private duty nursing is not covered by Medicare or the Plan. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that custodial care, which does not include services from 
trained medical or paramedical staff, is not covered.  We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of a 24-hour private duty nursing have not been met. Specifically, we find that the services at issue in 
this case are considered custodial in nature. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a 
24-hour private duty nursing services.
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 you to 
regain your independence and self sufficiency. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you do not meet 
the criteria for admission to an IRF.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found 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: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the ambulance response and treatment with no transport 
provided on April 28, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the ambulance response and treatment with no transport. You say that the service 
should be covered because you did not know Medicare's rules regarding ambulance calls and it is not clearly 
listed in your EOC. You also say that you did not make the call , it was someone at the bank. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says these services are not a covered benefit.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare does not pay for ambulance services when 
there is no transport.  
 
The ambulance company did not provide transport services on April 28, 2023. The ambulance benefit is a 
transportation benefit. When there is no transport, neither Medicare nor the Plan pays for the services provided. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the ambulance response and treatment with no 
transport provided on April 28, 2023.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the hearing aids provided on May 25, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the hearing aids. You say that you have already been fitted for your hearing aids 
and you should be reimbursed without going through the network provider. You say your husband was 
reimbursed from the out-of-network provider. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the service is not a 
covered benefit. 
 
Medicare does not pay for hearing aids or related services. However, the Plan offers a hearing aid benefit that 
exceeds Medicare coverage. For that reason, the plans coverage rules apply in this case. The Plan pays for 
hearing aids only received by an in-network provider.  
 
We looked at the file and the Plan's rules. Based on this information, we decided that the Plan's rules for 
coverage of the hearing aids have not been met. Specifically, the provider is out-of-network. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the hearing aids provided on May 25, 2023.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve additional one-way trips. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve additional one-way trips. You say that you are appealing the denial. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says extra one-way transportation trips cannot be approved. 
 
  Medicare does not cover transport in a vehicle that is not an ambulance. However, the Plan offers a 
transportation benefit that exceeds Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plans coverage rules apply in this 
case. The Plan covers a maximum of 10 one-way trips per year.  
 
We looked at your request, the records in the case file, and the rules. Based on this information, we decided 
that you have exhausted the Plan maximum benefit for coverage of routine transportation. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve additional one-way trips.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Freestyle Lite test strips. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the blood glucose test strips. You say that you are appealing the denied 
testing strips. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says only the preferred brand products listed in the EOC 
are covered.  
  The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that plans may specify brands and manufacturers as 
preferred and charge lower cost-sharing for the preferred brands or may limit the DME to only those preferred 
brands and manufacturers. Plans must ensure that enrollees have access to all medically necessary (including 
non- preferred) DME products or brands. The rules also say that a health plan must disclose to its enrollees, in 
clear accurate terms, the benefits offered under a plan, including applicable conditions and limitations 
associated with receipt or use of benefits. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. According to the EOC, the requested brand is not a preferred brand 
for the blood glucose test strips. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the Freestyle 
Lite test strips.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the re-evaluation-limited, problem focused (D0170) provided 
on August 28, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for this service. You say that you are requesting a reconsideration of the Plan's 
denial for payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the dental service was received from an out-
of-network provider and is 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 dental service from an out-of-network provider. Though the Plan offers a 
dental benefit in excess of Medicare coverage, dental services received from an out-of-network provider are not 
covered under this benefit. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the re-evaluation-
limited, problem focused (D0170) provided on August 28, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayments for the outpatient hospital services and an 
office visit on June 02, 2023, to June 03, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayments for the outpatient hospital services and an office visit. You say 
that you are questioning their processing as well as 
your responsibility. 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 $150 
copayment for surgery services at an outpatient hospital. You must pay a $15 copayment provider and 
professional services at a specialist's office visit. For both services it's, $150 + $15 = $165. Therefore, results in 
the total cost sharing amount of $165. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $150 copayment for the outpatient hospital services and a $15 copayment for 
office visit. This item/service falls within the outpatient hospital services and physician/practitioner services, 
including doctors office visits 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 copayments for 
the outpatient hospital services and an office visit on June 02, 2023, to June 03, 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 admission to an IRF is medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the records do not show that your condition and treatment needs can 
only be met with an inpatient acute rehabilitation program; you do not require the multiple complex services 
provided in this setting.; you do not need a doctor's visit or care at least three times per week; you do not need 
rehabilitation nursing care 24 hours per day.  
 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 can be 
provided in a lower level of care and does not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary 
approach to rehabilitation care. The enrollee requires treatment by multiple therapies, including physical 
therapy and occupational therapy, but this can be provided in a lower level of care. There is documentation that 
there is a reasonable expectation that the enrollee will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the 
intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF, but the services required can be provided at a 
lower 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 acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee is in critical need for intense physical , 
occupational, and speech therapy to maximize their potential for recovery and to return to their prior level of 
functioning. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an IRF admission is 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 that the complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation can be 
provided in a lower level of care and does not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary 
approach to rehabilitation care.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: 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 continuation of IRF services is medically necessary. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says continuation of IRF services is 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 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. The enrollee's 
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 therapy and/or 
occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. There is not a 
reasonable expectation that the enrollee will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive 
rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF. 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 acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee meets criteria for an IRF stay. You 
would like reconsideration based on the records submitted. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 
admission to an IRF is 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 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. The enrollee's 
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 therapy and/or 
occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. There is not a 
reasonable expectation that the enrollee will be able to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive 
rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF. 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.