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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a radio frequence ablation (rfa) procedure provided on 
November 03, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for a radio frequence ablation (rfa) procedure. You say that you do not need 
authorization for this procedure. Supporting documents have been attached to this appeal. 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 radio frequence 
ablation (rfa) procedure provided on November 03, 2022.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for an exam to treat an eye condition provided 
on January 18, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for an exam to treat an eye condition. You say that you are 
disputing the share cost. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this cost sharing was charged correctly. 
 
The rules say a plan must disclose to its enrollees in clear, accurate terms all cost sharing information (such as 
copayments, deductibles and coinsurance). Your contract with the Plan clearly says that you must pay a $40 
copayment for Vision care - Medicare-covered. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $40 copayment for an exam to treat an eye condition. This item/service falls 
within the Vision care - Medicare-covered benefit category. This means that you have been asked to pay the 
correct amount based on your contract with the Plan. This cost sharing is a contractual obligation you agreed to pay when you enrolled in the Plan. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment 
for an exam to treat an eye condition provided on January 18, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a nursing facility visit provided on November 02, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for a nursing facility visit. You say that we depend on the facility staff to verify 
eligibility and 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 a nursing facility visit 
provided on November 02, 2022.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for a specialist visit provided on December 08, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for a specialist visit. You say that you are disputing the share cost. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this cost sharing was charged correctly. 
 
The rules say a plan must disclose to its enrollees in clear, accurate terms all cost sharing information (such as 
copayments, deductibles and coinsurance). Your contract with the Plan clearly says that you must pay a $30 
copayment for physician/practitioner services, including doctors office visits. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $30 copayment for a specialist visit. This item/service falls within the 
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 copayment for a specialist visit provided on December 08, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for podiatry services provided on September 02, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for podiatry 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 podiatry services 
provided on September 02, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for a specialist visit provided on November 04, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for a specialist visit. You say that you are disputing the share cost. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this cost sharing was charged correctly. 
 
The rules say a plan must disclose to its enrollees in clear, accurate terms all cost sharing information (such as 
copayments, deductibles and coinsurance). Your contract with the Plan clearly says that you must pay a $30 
copayment for physician/practitioner services, including doctors office visits. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $30 copayment for a specialist visit. This item/service falls within the 
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 copayment for a specialist visit provided on November 04, 2022.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for lab testing provided on August 01, 2022, to August 31, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for lab testing. You say that you are requesting the submitted documentation be 
reviewed. 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 testing provided on 
August 01, 2022, to August 31, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an office visit provided on December 07, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for an office visit. You say that per documentation, coding is correct. Please see 
attached medical records that supports services billed. 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 07, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a skilled nursing facility visit provided on August 14, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for a skilled nursing facility visit. You say that we depend on the facility staff to 
verify eligibility and 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 a skilled nursing facility 
visit provided on August 14, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the domiciliary or rest home visit provided on July 15, 2021, 
to October 22, 2021. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the domiciliary or rest home visit. You say that the 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 the domiciliary or rest 
home visit provided on July 15, 2021, to October 22, 2021.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for the specialist office visit provided on 
November 29, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for the specialist office visit. You say that you feel the Plan should 
cover this cost. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this cost sharing was charged correctly. 
 
The rules say a plan must disclose to its enrollees in clear, accurate terms all cost sharing information (such as 
copayments, deductibles and coinsurance). Your contract with the Plan clearly says that you must pay a $20 
copayment for in-network specialist office visits.  
 
You have been asked to pay a $20 copayment for the specialist office visit. This item/service falls within the physician/practitioner 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 waive the copayment for 
the specialist office visit provided on November 29, 2022.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to reduce the copayment for the liver biopsy provided on October 11, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to reduce the copayment for the liver biopsy. You say that you were told this would only 
have a $150 copayment. 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 in-network outpatient surgery at an outpatient hospital. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $300 copayment for the liver biopsy. This item/service falls within the in-
network outpatient surgery at an outpatient hospital 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 liver biopsy provided on October 11, 2022.
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 it is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the enrollee does 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 enrollees nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The enrollee 
was admitted for encephalopathy. 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 pay for a nail debridement provided on September 06, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for a nail debridement. You say that this was medically necessary and should be 
covered. 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 nail debridement 
provided on September 06, 2022.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for laboratory drug testing provided on January 09, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for laboratory drug testing. You say that the patient is being treated in a drug rehab 
facility. This testing is needed. 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 laboratory drug testing 
provided on January 09, 2023.
Appeal type: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for ambulance service provided on December 
08, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for ambulance service. You say that you are disputing the share 
cost. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this cost sharing was charged correctly. 
 
The rules say a plan must disclose to its enrollees in clear, accurate terms all cost sharing information (such as 
copayments, deductibles and coinsurance). Your contract with the Plan clearly says that you must pay a $260 
copayment for ambulance services. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $260 copayment for ambulance service. 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 waive the copayment for ambulance service 
provided on December 08, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an electrocardiogram (ECG) provided on September 23, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for an electrocardiogram (ECG). You say that this service was 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 electrocardiogram 
(ECG) provided on September 23, 2022.
Appeal type: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve ambulance to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) 
provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve ambulance. You say that you are requesting reconsideration. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee must receive their care from a network provider (for more 
information about this, see Section 2 Chapter 3). In most cases, care the enrollee receives from an out-of-
network provider (a provider who is not part of the plans network) will not be covered. This means that the 
enrollee will have to pay the provider in full for the services furnished. 
 
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 
ambulance 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 a dental crown (D2752). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the dental services. You say that the services should be covered as you 
disagree with the denial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services denied correctly as they do 
not fall within your dental 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. 
 
 
  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 a 
dental crown (D2752).
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve a lower partial denture (D5214). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve this dental item. You say that you are requesting a reconsideration of the 
Plan's denial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the enrollees benefit for the requested item has 
already been exhausted. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare health plans must make reasonable and 
diligent efforts to gather and forward to the IRE information regarding its decision to deny coverage or 
payment.  
 
Though the Plan offers a dental benefit in excess of Medicare coverage, certain limitations apply. The Plan has 
not made reasonable and diligent efforts to gather and forward to us information regarding their decision to 
deny your request. Specifically, there is no evidence showing the enrollees benefit for the requested item was 
previously exhausted. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-approve a lower partial denture (D5214).  
 
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.