Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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 admission to an IRF is medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says an IRF admission 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 rehabilitation 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, at an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. The enrollee continues to have a need for skilled 
therapy with ongoing safety concerns and a potential for functional improvement however, the documentation 
does not support that she would meet criteria for admission to an acute IRF.  There is no indication that the 
enrollee would require skilled rehabilitation in an IRF, participating in rehab services 15 hours a week, under 
the supervision of a physician with at least 3 visits weekly to regain or maintain her functional status.  The 
enrollee can receive further services at 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 intensive therapies in an inpatient setting will be 
most appropriate for the enrollee as will not be limited to therapies only in a room. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the enrollee's 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 the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not 
require an acute rehabilitation 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, at an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. The enrollee continues to have a need for skilled 
therapy with ongoing safety concerns and a potential for functional improvement; however, the documentation 
does not support that the enrollee would meet criteria for admission to an acute inpatient rehabilitation 
facility. There is no indication that the enrollee would require skilled rehabilitation in an IRF, participating in 
rehabilitation services 15 hours a week, under the supervision of a physician with at least 3 visits weekly to 
regain or maintain the enrollee's functional status. The enrollee can receive further services at 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: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an MRI of the upper extremity joint. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve an MRI of the upper extremity joint. You say that  The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says an MRI of the upper extremity joint is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that MRIs are covered only when they are medically 
necessary.  
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve an MRI of the upper extremity joint. 
Our reviewer says that an MRI of the upper extremity joint is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer 
found that there is no documentation reading a trial and failure of recent, reasonable, comprehensive, less 
invasive conservative care measures for the left shoulder. Although there are therapy notes from August 30, 
2023, there are no further formal physical therapy that has been documented. The enrollee did not present any 
significantly detailed deficits in the left shoulder. Additionally, there is no compelling rationale presented or 
extenuating circumstances note to support the medical necessity of the request as an exception. Therefore, the 
requested MRI of the left shoulder is not medically reasonable or 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 an MRI of the upper extremity joint have not been met. Therefore, we decided 
that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an MRI of the upper extremity joint.
Appeal type: ER
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the emergency department visit provided on June 8, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the emergency department visit. You say that there is a hospice modifier on the 
claim. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says Original Medicare is responsible for payment. 
 
Medicare rules say that Original Medicare, not the Plan, is responsible for all Medicare-covered non-hospice 
services. Medicare hospice pays for claims related to the terminal illness. The rules say that the Plan may direct 
the provider to bill Medicare directly for these services.  
 The enrollee was under the Medicare hospice benefit for the dates of service at issue in this appeal. Therefore, 
we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the emergency department visit provided on June 8, 2023.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the panoramic radiographic image (D0330), and periodontal 
scaling and root planing - four or more teeth per quadrant (D4341) provided on June 26, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the panoramic radiographic image and periodontal scaling and root planing. You 
say that you have heart disease and have been advised that proper dental and gum care are very important. You 
also say that the denied services on the claim should be processed under medical instead of dental. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says these services are not covered under your plan. 
 
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 pay for the 
panoramic radiographic image (D0330), and periodontal scaling and root planing - four or more teeth per 
quadrant (D4341) provided on June 26, 2023.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay more for the limited oral evaluation - problem focused (D0140), 
and extraction, erupted tooth requiring removal of bone and/or sectioning of tooth, and including elevation of 
mucoperiosteal flap if indicated (D7210) provided on January 24, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay more for the dental services. You say that you have been sick for a long time and 
after the root canal procedure, on the same day an extraction and a computed tomography (CT). The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says you are responsible for any charged amount above the Plans cost-sharing 
amount when your services are received from an out-of-network provider.  
 
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. 
 
 You have been asked to pay the difference between the out-of-network providers charges and the Plans 
payment. 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 pay more for the limited oral evaluation - problem focused 
(D0140), and extraction, erupted tooth requiring removal of bone and/or sectioning of tooth, and including 
elevation of mucoperiosteal flap if indicated (D7210) provided on January 24, 2023.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the crown - porcelain/ceramic (D2740) provided on July 5, 
2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the crown. You say that you are requesting a one-time exception to pay the bill 
as you were not aware the dentist was not part of the plan. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
dental services were received from an out-of-network provider and are not covered by your supplemental 
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. 
 
 
 The record shows you received the requested dental services from an out-of-network provider. Though the Plan 
offers a dental benefit in excess of Medicare coverage, the requested items or services are not covered under 
this benefit when received from an out-of-network provider. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pay for the crown - porcelain/ceramic (D2740) provided on July 5, 2023.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Cosentyx. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the medication. You say that the request is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the medication is not covered as a medical benefit under the Plan. 
 
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 Cosentyx.  Benefits for the medication may be available under Medicare Part D. Contact the Plan that administers Part D 
benefits for further information concerning any benefits and appeal rights.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a home ventilator (E0466). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a home ventilator. You say that the device is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet criteria for approval of a ventilator. 
 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. Claims for ventilators used to provide CPAP or bi-level CPAP therapy will be denied as 
not reasonable and necessary. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve a home ventilator. Our reviewer says 
that the service is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has severe COPD, with a 
forced expiratory volume (FEV1) of 22% of predicted in June 2022. The enrollee has had 3 hospital admissions 
over the past few months for COPD exacerbations. Arterial blood gases (ABGs) on admission have shown 
acute on chronic hypercarbic respiratory failure. There is no diagnosis of thoracic restrictive disease or 
neuromuscular disease. The enrollee improved in the hospital with standard BiPAP. This enrollee may benefit 
from BiPAP with average volume-assured pressure support (AVAPS) during sleep as an outpatient.  Medicare 
does not cover a home ventilator when used at settings that can be provided with BiPAP. 
 
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 home ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a home ventilator (E0466).
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for physician services provided on December 22, 2022.

You asked the Plan to pay for these services. You say that when you arrived at the appointment the person you
were scheduled with was not available and you saw an alternate provider. The Plan denied your request. The
Plan says the provider who rendered this service is not a Medicare eligible provider. Maximus overturned the
Plans denial. The Plan requested a reopen and stated Maximus did not apply the correct contract criteria.

The Plan is correct in this case. The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that no Medicare payment
may be for services provided directly by a physician or practitioner who has opted out of the program or who is
not eligible to accept Medicare payment.

These services were rendered by a provider who has opted out of the Medicare program. Therefore, we decided
that the Plan does not have to pay for physician services provided on December 22, 2022.
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 you are appealing the denial. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the request is not medically necessary. 
 
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 there are no identifiable skilled nursing service needs. There are identifiable skilled 
therapy service needs. You do not require skilled nursing or therapy services on a daily basis. You do not meet 
severity of illness or intensity of service criteria for an inpatient basis in a skilled nursing facility 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 inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that the enrollee needs to continue therapy services to 
achieve an independent level of mobility and perform activities of daily living. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the requirements 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 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 
requires treatment by multiple therapies, including physical therapy and occupational therapy, but this can be 
provided in a lower level of care. There is documentation that there is 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, but the services required can be provided at 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: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the laboratory service provided on June 21, 2023, by an 
OON provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the laboratory service. You say that you are appealing the denial with supporting 
documentation. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 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 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 laboratory service provided on June 21, 2023, 
by an 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 services are medically necessary for the enrollee 
to improve their functional capacity as well as receive physician oversight. The Plan denied your request. The 
Plan says the enrollee does 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 the enrollee is medically stable, will undergo chemotherapy and does not need 
physical medicine and rehabilitation (PMR) physician's supervision 3 times a week in an IRF. No acute rehab 
nursing needs documented. At the current functional level, the enrollee does not need intensive therapies 
consisting of at least 3 hours of therapy per day at least 5 days per week with multidisciplinary approach in an 
IRF. Document does not support necessity for admission to an IRF. The complexity of the enrollee's medical, 
rehab, and nursing needs (combined complexity) does not require acute hospital inpatient rehab stay with an 
interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitative care. The enrollee's rehab needs can be safely provided in an 
alternate and low intensity setting such as in askilled nursing facility (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 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 trimming and debridement provided on July 31, 2023, by 
an OON provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the trimming and debridement. You say that you are requesting reconsideration 
of the denied claim. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 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 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 trimming and debridement provided on July 
31, 2023, by an OON provider.