Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Group 3 power wheelchair with multiple power 
options and accessories. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a Group 3 power wheelchair with multiple power options. You say that you 
want to appeal this denial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there is not a medical need for multiple 
power options. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that a Group 3 power wheelchair with multiple power 
options may be covered when certain criteria are met. 
 
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 Group 3 power wheelchair with 
multiple power options. Our reviewer says that the requested Group 3 power wheelchair with multiple power 
options is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee does not have high risk for skin 
breakdown, use a catheter intermittently, have spasticity or require an alternative means of managing power 
drive. Therefore, the reviewer found that the requested Group 3 power wheelchair with multiple power options 
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 a Group 3 power wheelchair with multiple power options have not been met. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Group 3 power wheelchair with multiple 
power options and accessories.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Zepbound. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the medication. You say that this is necessary for the enrollee. 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 Zepbound.
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 does not have anyone to assist them to 
ensure their safety because they are a fall risk. 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 that the enrollee does not need physician supervision 3 times a week or intensive 
therapy 3 hours a day and 5 days per week with a multidisciplinary approach in an IRF. While the enrollee may 
benefit from physical and occupational therapy the enrollee's needs can be provided in an alternate setting such 
as skilled nursing 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 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 long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the LTACH is the enrollee's best chance 
for a quicker recovery and more favorable outcome. You say the enrollee can receive an individualized care 
plan and the aggressive treatment needed. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the LTACH services are 
not medically necessary, and the enrollee's needs are being met in the current hospital facility. 
 
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 was admitted to the acute care hospital with bacteremia, possible 
pneumonia, pleural effusion, and acute respiratory failure requiring high flow oxygen support, intubation, mechanical ventilation support, antibiotics, diuresis. The enrollee appears to be improving but is still somewhat 
unstable and requires additional acute care services that can safely be provided at the current facility until more 
stable and appropriate for transfer. 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: Testing
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the chest, MRI 
of the abdomen, and creatine blood test to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve an MRI of the chest, MRI of the abdomen, and creatine blood test to be 
provided by an OON provider. You say that the services are necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says there are in-network providers that are able to provide these services. Therefore, coverage criteria have not 
been met. 
 
Medicare rules say that plans can require enrollees to get care from network providers. The contract with the 
Plan says that the Plan has to pre-approve care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving 
emergencies, out of area urgent care and care that cannot be provided by network providers. 
 The requested provider in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan has network providers 
available who can provide the items/services at issue in this appeal. We found no exception that would require 
the Plan to pre-approve these items/services. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve 
a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the chest, MRI of the abdomen, and creatine blood test to be provided 
by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a comprehensive oral evaluation (D0150) and prophylaxis-
adult (D1110) provided on August 6, 2021. 
 
 You asked the Plan to pay for the dental services. You say that you are appealing the filing deadline and 
request that this claim be reviewed and paid. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the dental services 
were received from an out-of-network provider and are not covered by the supplemental benefit.  
 
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 the requested dental services were provided by 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 a comprehensive oral evaluation (D0150) and prophylaxis-adult (D1110) provided on August 6, 
2021.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the CancerTYPE ID test (81540) on April 6, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for a CancerTYPE ID. You say that the services were billed correctly The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the documentation does not support the services billed. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate CPT code. 
 
In this case, the CPT Code Manual definition of code 81540 is a CancerTYPE ID test. 
 
We asked our coder 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 a CancerTYPE ID. Our reviewer says that the services are 
not supported. Our reviewer found documentation submitted was reviewed, and does not meet criteria. Medical 
record includes a physician order for service billed dated March 27, 2023; laboratory report documents date of 
collection March 7, 2023; date received March 28, 2023 and date reported April 6, 2023. In this case, date of service cannot be verified, as there is insufficient documentation to support Medicare criteria. "In general, the 
date of service (DOS) for clinical diagnostic laboratory tests is the date of specimen collection unless the 
physician orders the test at least 14 days following the patients discharge from the hospital. When the 14-day 
rule applies, the DOS is the date the test is performed, instead of the date of specimen collection". 
 
We looked at this coder's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of a CancerTYPE ID have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pay for the CancerTYPE ID test (81540) on April 6, 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 admission is medically necessary for the enrollee. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the records do not show the enrollee needs to be seen by a 
rehabilitation physician three times per week or the need for an 
intensive team for care. The Plan says the enrollee may benefit from continued therapy, services needed can 
reasonably be 
expected to continue recovery at a lower level of care with good success.  
 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 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 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: 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 had surgery and needs acute inpatient 
rehabilitation to get back to normal living. 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 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 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: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the extraction provided on October 19, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the extraction. You say that the extraction was needed due to decay. You say that 
your husband received care at this office before and the services were covered for him. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the dental service was 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 service 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 extraction provided on October 19, 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 are very weak in her legs and cannot walk very 
well meaning or cannot go to the bathroom on your own. 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.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve post-acute inpatient hospital care. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve post-acute inpatient hospital care. You say that the services are necessary. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that based on the documentation provided, coverage criteria has 
not been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that inpatient hospital care is covered when the doctor 
expects the patient to need hospital care that crosses at least two midnights. In rare and unusual cases, 
consideration may be given to inpatient hospital care when the hospital stay does not cross two midnights or 
more. 
 
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 post-acute inpatient hospital care. Our 
reviewer says that the documentation supports that the criteria for inpatient payment are met in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the review has determined that the record showed that the admitting physician would 
have expected that your necessary hospital care will span two midnights with supporting documentation of 
your history and comorbidities, signs and symptoms, current medical needs, and risk of an adverse event. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of post-acute inpatient hospital care have been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan has to pre-approve post-acute inpatient hospital care.  
 
If the Plan does not agree with our decision, they can ask us to open a case again. We only open a case again 
if we believe there was a mistake or if there is new information to review. The Plan has to show us the mistake 
and/or send us the new information. This does not happen often. If we decide to open the case again, we will 
send you a letter.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay more for the hearing aids provided on August 11, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay more for the hearing aids. You say that you should have been reimbursed $1,000, 
but only received $750. 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 25% 
coinsurance for out-of-network hearing aids, then any amount over $1,000 every three years.  
 
You have been asked to pay 25% coinsurance of the allowed amount for the hearing aids. The allowed amount 
is $1,000. ($1,000 x 25% = $250). The hearing aids fall within the mandatory supplemental hearing benefits 
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 pay more for the hearing aids provided on August 11, 2023.
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Evenity. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve Evenity. 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. 
 
Medicare covers Part B medications when they are reasonable and necessary but allows health plans to 
implement step therapy criteria. The Plan's contract indicates that it has implemented such criteria for certain 
Part B medications. 
 
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 Evenity. Our reviewer says that the 
services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found in this case, you have not tried and failed 
the required drug. There is no documentation provided indicating that the plans required drug would likely be 
less effective and/or likely have adverse effects for you. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Evenity have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pre-approve Evenity.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the genicular nerve block. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the genicular nerve block. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
genicular nerve block 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 genicular nerve block. Our reviewer 
says that the genicular nerve block is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the genicular 
nerve block is the subject of ongoing clinical trials and is considered experimental therapy. 
 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 genicular nerve block have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve the genicular nerve block.