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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the genetic testing provided on February 27, 2023, by an 
OON provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the genetic testing. You say that you are requesting reconsideration of the denied 
claim. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this service was not authorized. 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 Plan contract says the enrollees POS benefit only applies to 
covered routine dental services. The Plan contract says the enrollees POS benefit only applies to covered 
routine dental services. 
 
The requested 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 genetic testing provided on February 27, 2023, 
by an OON provider.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that an LTACH level of care is the only 
option for a safe discharge due to the various needs of the enrollee. You would like reconsideration based on 
the records submitted. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet all the 
requirements for admission to an LTACH.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that LTACH services are covered if they are medically 
necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee. 
 
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 LTACH services. Our reviewer says 
that the requested LTACH care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found that the enrollee is receiving appropriate care in the current acute care setting as 
provided by the Plan. The documentation does not support that LTACH services are medically appropriate at this time. 
 
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 LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve LTACH services.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Myrbetriq. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the drug. You say that you have been on this drug for over a year with 
therapeutic results. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that self-administered drugs do not fall under 
Medicare Part B coverage. 
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare Part B generally does not pay for self-
administered drugs. The self-administered drugs requested here are not among the types which are covered by 
Medicare Part B. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Myrbetriq.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the services are medically necessary for 
the enrollee's complex medical needs. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's medical needs 
are being met in the current setting. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that LTACH services are covered if they are medically 
necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 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 LTACH services. Our reviewer says 
that the requested LTACH care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee is responding to current treatment but is still somewhat unstable for 
transfer yet and should only require short-term additional acute care services that can safely be provided at the 
current facility until more stable and appropriate for transfer to a lower level of care. The enrollee does not 
require services at the LTACH that are not already available at the current facility.  
 
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 LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve facet joint injections. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the injections. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says facet joint 
injections 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 injections. Our reviewer says that 
the enrollee does not meet the coverage criteria. Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee has multiple 
pain generators. The LCD criteria requires that other pain generators be excluded before treating facet mediated 
pain. Therefore, the request is not medically reasonable and 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 injections have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve facet joint injections.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Euflexxa and the arthrocentesis procedure. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Euflexxa and the arthrocentesis procedure. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says Euflexxa and the arthrocentesis procedure is not medically necessary.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare may pay for unlabeled uses for FDA-
approved 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 Euflexxa and the arthrocentesis 
procedure. Our reviewer says that Euflexxa and the arthrocentesis procedure is not medically necessary. Our 
physician reviewer found that that the enrollee has a diagnosis of osteoarthritis of the knee. Also, there is an 
indication that the enrollee has had previous viscosupplementation therapy but there is no documented benefit. 
Additionally, the records provided is insufficient to establish the medical necessity and reasonableness for the 
arthrocentesis procedure as defined by Medicare rules. Therefore, the elements of the coverage criteria are not 
satisfied. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Euflexxa and the arthrocentesis procedure. have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Euflexxa and the arthrocentesis procedure.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the enrollee is medically stable to be 
transferred to an LTACH at this time. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an LTACH admission is not 
medically necessary.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that LTACH services are covered if they are medically 
necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee. 
 
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 LTACH services. Our reviewer says 
that the requested LTACH care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found that the documentation does not support that LTACH services are medically 
appropriate. The enrollee is receiving the appropriate care in the current acute care setting as provided by the 
Health Plan.  
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 LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve LTACH services.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve CardioMEMS Heart Failure (HF) system (33289, 
93264, C2624). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve CardioMEMS HF system. You say that the services are necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says medical necessity has not been established. Therefore, coverage criteria 
have not been met. 
 
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 CardioMEMS HF system. Our reviewer 
says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found 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 enrollees 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 CardioMEMS HF system have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve CardioMEMS Heart Failure (HF) system (33289, 93264, C2624).
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a lift chair (A9270). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a lift chair. You say that the item is medically necessary. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says this item does not primarily serve a medical purpose. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that for equipment to be covered, it must primarily serve a 
medical purpose.   
 
The item at issue in this appeal does not serve a purpose that is primarily medical in nature. This item is 
available to the general public and would be helpful even to those who are not sick or injured. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a lift chair (A9270).
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for the remote device monitoring services 
provided on May 23, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for the remote device monitoring services. You say that you want 
to appeal the copayment for this procedure. 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 in-network specialist physician/practitioner services. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $35 copayment for the remote device monitoring services. This item/service falls 
within the in-network specialist 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 remote device monitoring services provided on May 23, 2023.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you would like reconsideration based on the records 
submitted. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says based on the records received, the enrollee does not 
meet Medicare guidelines 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 that the documentation does not support the necessity for admission to an IRF. The 
complexity of the enrollee's medical, rehabilitation, and nursing needs does not require an acute hospital 
inpatient rehabilitation stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitative care. The enrollee's 
rehabilitation needs can be safely provided in an alternate and low intensity setting such as in an SNF.  
 
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 an IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the wig (A9282), provided on January 25, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the wig. You say that the item should be covered. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says this is not a covered item. 
 
Medicare may pay for items which either meet the definition of DME or a prosthesis when these items are 
ordered by a physician. The Plan follows these same rules. 
 
In this case, although the wig may be appropriate, it does not meet the definition of the above benefit 
categories. It is not considered DME because it does not directly treat a medical condition. It does not meet the 
Medicare definition of a prosthetic because it does not replace an internal body organ or attached tissue. As such, it is noncovered by Medicare. Furthermore, the Plan does not offer a supplemental benefit which would 
provide coverage for a wig. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the wig (A9282), 
provided on January 25, 2023.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the enrollee will benefit from LTACH 
services to regain maximum prior level of functioning and a continued multidisciplinary approach to care. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the guidelines for LTACH services.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that LTACH services are covered if they are medically 
necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee. 
 
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 LTACH services. Our reviewer says 
that the requested LTACH care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found that the enrollee is receiving appropriate care in current acute care setting as provided 
by the Plan. The documentation does not support that LTACH services are medically appropriate at this time. 
 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 LTACH services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve LTACH services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a sacroiliac joint injection.  
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the injection. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says a sacroiliac joint 
injection 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 the injection. Our reviewer says that 
you do not meet the LCD coverage criteria. Our physician reviewer found that imaging of the joint has not 
been submitted. The LCD requires the documentation of three diagnostic physical exam signs. Therefore, the 
request is not medically reasonable and 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 injection have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a sacroiliac joint injection.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a ventilator for 3 months (E0466). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a ventilator for 3 months. You say that the services are necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says based on the documentation provided, coverage criteria has not been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that ventilators may be covered when they are medically 
necessary for patients who have neuromuscular disease, thoracic restrictive diseases, and chronic respiratory 
failure due to COPD. 
 
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 ventilator for 3 months. Our reviewer 
says that the services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the provided primary source documentation does not contain sufficient detailed information in the medical record to justify the treatment 
selected. The enrollee could be treated with a bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) machine with average 
volume assured pressure support (AVAPS) capability and failure of such a device has not been documented. 
The plan has indicated coverage for such a device is available upon request. The elements of the coverage 
criteria are not satisfied. The requested service cannot be recommended. 
 
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 ventilator for 3 months have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve a ventilator for 3 months (E0466).
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee's medical management and rehabilitation 
needs require an IRF stay and close supervision. You would like reconsideration based on the records 
submitted. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says admission to an IRF is not medically necessary.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found that 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 does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational 
therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While the enrollee may have a need for physical 
therapy 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 an IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the office visit provided on March 10, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the office visit. You say that the enrollee changed plans and you are requesting 
reconsideration for this 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 office visit provided 
on March 10, 2023.