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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a residence visit on July 10, 2023 provided on July 10, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for a residence visit on July 10, 2023. You say that the service at issue was a 
necessity for the enrollees care. 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 residence visit on July 
10, 2023 provided on July 10, 2023.
Appeal type: ER
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for an emergency room (ER) visit provided on 
April 01, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for an emergency room (ER) visit. You say that you were only 
checked in and told you would have to go to a different ER, due to wound care that couldnt be done in this 
facility. 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 $90 
copayment for emergency care. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $90 copayment for an emergency room (ER) visit. This item/service falls within 
the emergency care 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 emergency room 
(ER) visit provided on April 01, 2023.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the coinsurance for an electrocardiogram (EKG) provided on 
August 08, 2023, to August 28, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the coinsurance for an electrocardiogram (EKG). You say that you refuse to pay 
these extra charges for EKGs. 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 10% 
coinsurance for outpatient diagnostic tests and therapeutic services and supplies. 
 
You have been asked to pay 10% coinsurance for an 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. The total you owe is $9.01 ($1.75 + $7.26 = 
$9.01). Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to waive the coinsurance for an electrocardiogram 
(EKG) provided on August 08, 2023, to August 28, 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 you would benefit from the services at an IRF to 
regain your prior functional mobility. 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the initial hospital inpatient or observation care (99223) 
provided on August 14, 2023, by an out-of-network (OON) provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the hospital care. You say that this was medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says prior authorization was not obtained. 
 
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 in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan had network providers available 
who could have provided the items/services at issue in this appeal. The Plan did not pre-approve the 
item/service at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay for these items/services. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the initial hospital inpatient or observation care 
(99223) provided on August 14, 2023, by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
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 needs IRF services to optimize their 
level of functioning prior to returning home. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not 
meet the requirements for an IRF admission.  
 
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, and there are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. Medically necessary 
services can be provided in 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 criteria for IRF care have been met. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says IRF care is not reasonable and 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 patient's nursing, medical, and rehabilitation needs do not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. While the 
medical records support a need for physical and/or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for 
intensive rehabilitation services. There is not a reasonable expectation that the patient 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: ER
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for emergency care provided on June 16, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for emergency care. You say that you disagree with the 
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 $125 
copayment for emergency care. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $125 copayment for emergency care. This item/service falls within the 
emergency care 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 emergency care provided 
on June 16, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a speech and hearing therapy visit (92507) provided on 
January 12, 2023 provided on January 12, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for a speech and hearing therapy visit (92507) provided on January 12, 2023. You 
say that you were provided with incorrect information when you initially called the Plan. 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 speech and hearing 
therapy visit (92507) provided on January 12, 2023 provided on January 12, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the clinic services provided on June 20, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the clinic services. You say that you are requesting reconsideration of the denied 
claim. 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 clinic services 
provided on June 20, 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 inpatient rehabilitation is medically necessary and is 
a covered plan benefit. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request 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 do 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.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the posterior spinous process distraction and 
stabilization device. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the posterior spinous process distraction and stabilization device. You say 
that the enrollee has previously tried injections and have been to physical therapy. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the posterior spinous process distraction and stabilization device 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 the posterior spinous process distraction 
and stabilization device. Our reviewer says that the posterior spinous process distraction and stabilization 
device are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the interspinous distraction devices are 
considered experimental and more research is needed. 
 
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 posterior spinous process distraction and stabilization device have not been 
met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the posterior spinous process distraction 
and stabilization device.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the cost share for an outpatient diagnostic test provided on 
August 30, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the cost share for an outpatient diagnostic test. You say that you disagree with the 
cost share. 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. Your 
contract with the Plan says that there is a $675 deductible a $295 copayment which applies to outpatient 
diagnostic tests/outpatient hospital.  
 
The item or service you asked the Plan to waive the cost share for falls within the outpatient diagnostic 
tests/outpatient hospital benefit category. The total amount you are being asked to pay is $970 ($675 + $295 = 
$970). The Plan has followed Medicare rules by clearly disclosing in the contract that there is a $675 
deductible a $295 copayment which applies to outpatient diagnostic tests/outpatient hospital. This cost sharing 
is a contractual obligation that had not been met at the time an outpatient diagnostic test was received on August 30, 2023. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to waive the cost share for an outpatient 
diagnostic test provided on August 30, 2023.
Appeal type: Testing
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the coinsurance for Medicare Part B prescription drugs 
provided on August 21, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the coinsurance for Medicare Part B prescription drugs. You say that you disagree 
with the coinsurance. 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 Medicare Part B prescription drugs. 
 
You have been asked to pay 20% coinsurance for Medicare Part B prescription drugs. This item/service falls 
within the Medicare Part B prescription drugs 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 coinsurance 
for Medicare Part B prescription drugs provided on August 21, 2023.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for home health services (G0299, Q5001) provided on April 14, 
2022, through June 1, 2022. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for home health services. You say that you disagree with the denial. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the NOA was not received timely. As such, this final claim was correctly denied.  
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that an NOA must be submitted within 5 days of the start of 
care date for home health services. NOAs which are received more than 30 days from the timely filing date 
result in no payment being made for the episode of care.  
 
In this case, the start of care date is April 14, 2022. The NOA was not received by the Plan until October 6, 
2022. As more than 30 days passed between the timely filing date and the NOA receipt, no payment can be 
made on this claim. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for home health services (G0299, 
Q5001) provided on April 14, 2022, through June 1, 2022.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the lab testing billed for date of service August 10, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the lab testing. You say that the results were needed for treatment decisions. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says coverage criteria have not been met. 
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate CPT code. 
 
We looked at the rules. The records do not show that the enrollee had either recurrent, relapsed, refractory, 
metastatic, or advanced stage III or IV cancer. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of the lab testing have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the 
lab testing billed for date of service August 10, 2023.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a CardioMEMS device. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a CardioMEMS device.. You say that the implant is the best way to manage 
the enrollee's heart failure with the goal of reducing their heart failure and hospitalizations. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says a CardioMEMS device is 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 a CardioMEMS device. Our reviewer 
says that a CardioMEMS device is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that there remains a 
dearth of randomized, blinded clinical studies examining long-term clinical outcomes establishing the value of 
CardioMEMS in patient management. As a result, at this time the CardioMEMS system would not be 
considered medically appropriate and necessary in this enrollee's clinical management. 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 CardioMEMS device have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve a CardioMEMS device.
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 acute inpatient rehabilitation is the best treatment for 
you. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says your condition does not meet all the requirements for 
inpatient rehabilitation admission. The Plan says services may be provided at a lower level of care.  
 
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 your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not require an 
acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The medical records 
support 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. It is not a 
reasonable expectation that you 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.