Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that it is medically necessary for the enrollee to go to 
inpatient rehabilitation. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says based on Medicare guidelines, the IRF 
services requested do not meet the requirements for approval. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of the enrollees nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The enrollee 
was admitted for surgical repair of a femur fracture after a fall. Medical problems are stable. There are no 
complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. While 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. 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. 
 
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 IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF care. You say that the services are medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee can receive the care they need in another setting, such as home, 
a long-term care facility, or other outpatient setting.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for care in a SNF when the four factors 
listed in the Medicare rules section are met. Custodial care is 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 SNF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested SNF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee does not have daily skilled nursing needs that require the specialized 
skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional nurse. The enrollee does have daily skilled therapy 
needs that require the specialized skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional therapist. The 
enrollee does not require daily skilled nursing and skilled therapy on an inpatient basis in a skilled nursing 
facility (SNF) setting. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of SNF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that this service is medically necessary for the enrollee to 
be able to regain function. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says based on Medicare guidelines, the IRF 
services requested do not meet the requirements for approval. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of the enrollees nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The enrollee 
was admitted for surgical repair of a tib-fib fracture. Medical problems are stable. There are no complex 
nursing or rehabilitation needs. While 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. 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. 
 
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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Sprint PNS system and associated supplies. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a Sprint PNS system and associated supplies. You say that you do not agree 
with the denial for the requested Sprint PNS system and associated supplies. The Plan denied your request. The 
Plan says Medicare, nor your Medicare Advantage health plan covers this request. Medical studies have not 
proven this service or item is helpful for the treatment of your health. 
 
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 Sprint PNS system. Our reviewer 
says that the requested items/services is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the Sprint PNS device is experimental for shoulder pain 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 Sprint PNS system have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a Sprint PNS system.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Keytruda. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Keytruda. You say that the requested chemotherapy drug is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested drug is not supported as the first-line of 
treatment for the enrollee's diagnosis. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare may pay for unlabeled uses for anti-cancer 
drugs if they are medically accepted as safe and effective or appropriate for the particular use.  
 
 
  We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve Keytruda. Our reviewer says that 
Keytruda (pembrolizumab) does not meet the required criteria for approval. Our physician reviewer found the 
requested drug, Keytruda, is not FDA-approved or supported by any compendia as the appropriate treatment 
for the enrollee's diagnosis.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Keytruda have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Keytruda.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for a computed tomography (CT) scan 
performed at an outpatient hospital provided on February 18, 2023, to February 20, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for a computed tomography (CT) scan performed at an outpatient 
hospital. You say that you feel the inpatient status was appropriate and the service should be 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 a $275 
copayment for outpatient diagnostic test. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $275 copayment for a computed tomography (CT) scan performed at an 
outpatient hospital. This item/service falls within the outpatient diagnostic test 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 computed tomography (CT) scan performed at an outpatient 
hospital provided on February 18, 2023, to February 20, 2023.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that admission is a medical necessity.  The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the enrollee's therapy needs are not those uniquely provided in 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 the complexity of the enrollees nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The enrollee 
was admitted for back pain. Medical problems are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. 
While 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. 
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. 
 
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 IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an office visit provided on February 22, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for an office visit. You say that you are requesting a reconsideration of the denied 
charges. 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 February 22, 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. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's ecords 
show you have improved with surgery. Services needed may be provided safely in 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 the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an office visit provided on January 17, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for an office visit. 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 an office visit provided 
on January 17, 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 prefer an acute rehabilitation because you were 
independent before hospital admission and want to return to this. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 
your rehabilitation goals will be best met in sub-acute rehabilitation settings. 
 
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. 
 
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 waive the copayment for the ambulance service provided on March 
03, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for the ambulance service. You say that you cannot afford this 
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 $240 
copayment for ambulance services. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $240 copayment for the 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 the ambulance 
service provided on March 03, 2023.
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for subsequent nursing facility care visits provided on August 
19, 2022, to November 18, 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 August 19, 2022, to November 18, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an office visit provided on January 06, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for an office visit. You say that you are requesting a reconsideration of the denied 
charges. 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 January 06, 2023.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to reduce the copayment for an in-network 
esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) procedure provided on December 06, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to reduce the copayment for an in-network esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) 
procedure. You say that you were told you would have a $50 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 $345 
copayment for outpatient surgery, including services provided at hospital outpatient facilities and ambulatory 
surgical centers.  
You have been asked to pay a $345 copayment for an in-network esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) 
procedure. 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 reduce the 
copayment for an in-network esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) procedure provided on December 06, 2022.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the Cala Trio nerve stimulator leads (K1019) provided on 
January 31, 2023. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for the Cala Trio nerve stimulator leads. You say that the enrollee has been using the 
Cala Trio device and seeing improvement. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the denial of the Cala 
Trio nerve stimulator device was appropriate. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that where electric nerve stimulation is employed to treat 
motor function disorders, no reimbursement may be made for the stimulator or for the services related to its 
implantation. 
 
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 pay for the Cala Trio nerve stimulator leads. Our 
physician reviewer found that the Cala Trio nerve stimulator is not medically necessary. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the Cala Trio nerve stimulator leads have not been met. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan does not have to pay for the Cala Trio nerve stimulator leads (K1019) provided on January 31, 
2023.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the injection of allograft into intervertebral disc. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the injection of allograft into intervertebral disc. You say that the enrollee 
has suffered from both midline and para-midline back pain and has failed conservative treatment. You say that 
the procedure is appropriately indicated for the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says  the 
injection of allograft into intervertebral disc is considered experimental and investigational. 
 
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 injection of allograft into 
intervertebral disc. Our reviewer says that the requested service is not considered medically reasonable and 
necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found bioactive allograft disc injection is purely experimental 
for back pain, 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 injection of allograft into intervertebral disc have not been met. Therefore, 
we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the injection of allograft into intervertebral disc.