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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for electrocardiogram (EKG) provided on 
January 25, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for electrocardiogram (EKG). You say that you already paid a $35 
office visit copayment so should not get another charge. 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 $35 
copayment for outpatient diagnostic tests and therapeutic services and supplies. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $35 copayment for electrocardiogram (EKG). This item/service falls 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 copayment for electrocardiogram (EKG) provided on January 25, 2023.
Appeal type: ER
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an emergency department visit provided on October 7, 2022. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for an emergency department visit. You say that the claim is not a hospice claim and 
should be reprocessed. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says Original Medicare is responsible for 
payment. 
 
Medicare rules say that Original Medicare, not the Plan, is responsible for all Medicare-covered non-hospice 
services. Medicare hospice pays for claims related to the terminal illness. The rules say that the Plan may direct 
the provider to bill Medicare directly for these services.  
 
The enrollee was under the Medicare hospice benefit for the dates of service at issue in this appeal. Therefore, 
we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an emergency department visit provided on October 7, 2022.
Appeal type: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for ambulance services provided on August 2, 2022. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for ambulance services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says Original 
Medicare is responsible for payment. 
 
Medicare rules say that Original Medicare, not the Plan, is responsible for all Medicare-covered non-hospice 
services. Medicare hospice pays for claims related to the terminal illness. The rules say that the Plan may direct 
the provider to bill Medicare directly for these services.  
 
The enrollee was under the Medicare hospice benefit for the dates of service at issue in this appeal. Therefore, 
we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for ambulance services provided on August 2, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for subsequent hospital care provided on November 7, 2022. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for subsequent hospital care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says Original 
Medicare is responsible for payment. 
 
Medicare rules say that Original Medicare, not the Plan, is responsible for all Medicare-covered non-hospice 
services. Medicare hospice pays for claims related to the terminal illness. The rules say that the Plan may direct 
the provider to bill Medicare directly for these services.  
 
The enrollee was under the Medicare hospice benefit for the dates of service at issue in this appeal. Therefore, 
we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for subsequent hospital care provided on November 7, 2022.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a FreeStyle Libre 2 therapeutic continuous glucose 
monitor (CGM). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the CGM. You say that the submitted medical records provide the medical 
necessity for the CGM. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you do not require insulin three or more 
times daily. 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. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the CGM have 
not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a FreeStyle Libre 2 therapeutic 
continuous glucose monitor (CGM).
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an office visit provided on December 29, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for an office visit. You say that it is the responsibility of the facility to obtain 
authorization. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that unauthorized, out-of-network care is not 
covered. 
 
Medicare rules say that plans can require enrollees to get care from network providers. The contract with the 
Plan says that the Plan has to pay for care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving emergencies, 
out of area urgent care and pre-approved care.  
The provider of the item(s)/service(s) at issue in this appeal is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan 
did not pre-approve the item(s)/service(s) at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay 
for the item(s)/service(s). Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an office visit provided 
on December 29, 2022.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a home or residence visit provided on March 02, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for a home or residence visit. You say that the records attached support the services 
provided. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that unauthorized, out-of-network care is not covered. 
 
Medicare rules say that plans can require enrollees to get care from network providers. The contract with the 
Plan says that the Plan has to pay for care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving emergencies, 
out of area urgent care and pre-approved care.  
The provider of the item(s)/service(s) at issue in this appeal is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan 
did not pre-approve the item(s)/service(s) at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay 
for the item(s)/service(s). Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a home or residence visit 
provided on March 02, 2023.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for subsequent nursing facility care visits provided on February 
16, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for subsequent nursing facility care visits. You say that these services are medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that unauthorized, out-of-network care is not covered. 
 
Medicare rules say that plans can require enrollees to get care from network providers. The contract with the 
Plan says that the Plan has to pay for care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving emergencies, 
out of area urgent care and pre-approved care.  
The provider of the item(s)/service(s) at issue in this appeal is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan 
did not pre-approve the item(s)/service(s) at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay 
for the item(s)/service(s). Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for subsequent nursing 
facility care visits provided on February 16, 2023.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve a PET scan with CT scan. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a PET scan with CT scan. You say that the PET CT scan was ordered to 
evaluate a lung mass found on the CT scan of the chest on December 22, 2022. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says that a PET scan with CT scan is medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that PET scans are covered only when they are 
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 a PET scan with CT scan. Our reviewer 
says that a PET scan with CT scan is medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee was 
found to have a parenchymal density in the lingula on an abdominal CT scan on November 15, 2022. A 
dedicated chest CT on December 22, 2022, confirmed a 5.9 cm lingular mass with some calcifications. A PET 
scan with CT scan is a reasonable next step to assess the potential for malignancy and to assist with clinical 
staging. 
 
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 PET scan with CT scan have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
has to pre-approve a PET scan with CT scan. 
 
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: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for infectious agent detection provided on November 10, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for infectious agent detection. You say that the records attached support the services 
provided. 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 infectious agent 
detection provided on November 10, 2022.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for the laboratory services provided on November 29, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the laboratory services. You say that you would like the Plan to reconsider their 
denial of payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the services are not covered, and you will 
not be held responsible for the cost of this service. 
 
Medicare rules say that a contract provider is an agent of the plan. Services and referrals given by a contract 
provider are considered approved by the plan unless notice is provided that the services will not be covered. 
The Plan follows these rules. 
 
You were referred for the laboratory services by a contract provider. The file does not show that the Plan 
provided notice that the laboratory services would not be covered. Under Medicare rules, this means the 
laboratory services are considered approved by the Plan. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for the 
laboratory services provided on November 29, 2022.  
 
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 subsequent nursing facility care visits provided on December 
21, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for subsequent nursing facility care visits. You say that the records attached support 
the services provided. 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 subsequent nursing 
facility care visits provided on December 21, 2022.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for subsequent nursing facility care visits provided on February 
07, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for subsequent nursing facility care visits. You say that the records attached support 
the services provided. 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 subsequent nursing 
facility care visits provided on February 07, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for domiciliary or rest home visit provided on October 21, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for domiciliary or rest home visit. You say that it is the responsibility of the facility 
to obtain authorization. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that unauthorized, out-of-network care is 
not covered. 
 
Medicare rules say that plans can require enrollees to get care from network providers. The contract with the 
Plan says that the Plan has to pay for care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving emergencies, 
out of area urgent care and pre-approved care.  
The provider of the item(s)/service(s) at issue in this appeal is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan 
did not pre-approve the item(s)/service(s) at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay 
for the item(s)/service(s). Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for domiciliary or rest home 
visit provided on October 21, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for domiciliary or rest home visit provided on December 05, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for domiciliary or rest home visit. You say that it is the responsibility of the facility 
to obtain authorization. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that unauthorized, out-of-network care is 
not covered. 
 
Medicare rules say that plans can require enrollees to get care from network providers. The contract with the 
Plan says that the Plan has to pay for care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving emergencies, 
out of area urgent care and pre-approved care.  
The provider of the item(s)/service(s) at issue in this appeal is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan 
did not pre-approve the item(s)/service(s) at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay 
for the item(s)/service(s). Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for domiciliary or rest home 
visit provided on December 05, 2022.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for lab services provided on November 15, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for lab services. You say that this is supported in the records. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says that unauthorized, out-of-network care is not covered. 
 
Medicare rules say that plans can require enrollees to get care from network providers. The contract with the 
Plan says that the Plan has to pay for care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving emergencies, 
out of area urgent care and pre-approved care.  
The provider of the item(s)/service(s) at issue in this appeal is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan 
did not pre-approve the item(s)/service(s) at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay 
for the item(s)/service(s). Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for lab services provided on 
November 15, 2022.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the coinsurance for each continuous glucose monitor provided 
on September 23, 2022, to November 24, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the coinsurance for each continuous glucose monitor. You say that you were told 
the glucose monitor would be fully covered. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this cost sharing was 
charged correctly. 
 
The rules say a plan must disclose to its enrollees in clear, accurate terms all cost sharing information (such as 
copayments, deductibles and coinsurance). Your contract with the Plan clearly says that you must pay 20% 
coinsurance for in-network durable medical equipment and related supplies. 
 
You have been asked to pay 20% coinsurance for each continuous glucose monitor. This item/service falls 
within the in-network durable medical equipment and related supplies benefit category. This means that you have been asked to pay the correct amount based on your contract with the Plan. This cost sharing is a 
contractual obligation you agreed to pay when you enrolled in the Plan. The amount you owe for each 
continuous glucose monitor is $46.92 ($243.60 allowed amount x 20% = $46.92). The total amount you owe is 
$140.76 ($46.92 coinsurance x 3 monitors = $140.92). Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
waive the coinsurance for each continuous glucose monitor provided on September 23, 2022, to November 24, 
2022.
Appeal type: Testing
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for colonoscopy provided on January 10, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for colonoscopy. You say that you believe that it is not fair to you 
and you are on a limited income. 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 $325 
copayment for outpatient surgery, including services provided at hospital outpatient facilities and ambulatory 
surgical centers. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $325 copayment for colonoscopy. This item/service falls within the outpatient surgery, including 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 colonoscopy provided on January 10, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for chronic care management services provided on December 
21, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for chronic care management services. You say that you did not have any input in 
choosing who would be your provider. 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 chronic care 
management services provided on December 21, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an annual physical exam and related services provided on 
November 15, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for an annual physical exam and related services. You say that these services were 
medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that unauthorized, out-of-network care is not 
covered. 
 Medicare rules say that plans can require enrollees to get care from network providers. The contract with the 
Plan says that the Plan has to pay for care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving emergencies, 
out of area urgent care and pre-approved care. 
 
The provider of the item(s)/service(s) at issue in this appeal is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan 
did not pre-approve the item(s)/service(s) at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay 
for the item(s)/service(s). Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an annual physical exam 
and related services provided on November 15, 2022.
Appeal type: Testing
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for the transthoracic echocardiogram provided 
on November 29, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for the transthoracic echocardiogram. You say that this has been 
fully covered in the past. 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 $100 
copayment for in-network outpatient diagnostic tests. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $100 copayment for the transthoracic echocardiogram. This item/service falls 
within the in-network outpatient diagnostic tests 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 the transthoracic echocardiogram provided on November 29, 2022.