Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve additional trips. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve additional trips. You say that you need transportation to your dialysis 
appointments three times per week. You also say that you fear if you miss dialysis that you could die. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says this request for an authorization for transportation services beyond the 
number of trips covered in your 2023 transportation benefit has been denied. 
 Medicare does not cover transport in a vehicle that is not an ambulance. However, the Plan offers a 
transportation benefit that exceeds Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plans coverage rules apply in this 
case. The Plan covers a maximum of 50 one-way, non-emergency trips per year.  
 
We looked at your request, the records in the case file, and the rules. Based on this information, we decided 
that you have exhausted the Plan maximum benefit for coverage of routine transportation. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve additional trips.
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 the complexity of enrollees 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. While the enrollee may have a need for skilled therapy 
with ongoing safety concerns and a potential for functional improvement, the documentation does not support 
that the enrollee would meet criteria for admission to an IRF. 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 an IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a comprehensive oral evaluation (D0150, D0210) provided 
on July 15, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the dental services. You say that the services should be covered as you disagree 
with the denial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says your benefit for the requested item or service has 
already been exhausted. 
 
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, certain limitations apply. The record 
shows your benefit for the requested item or service was exhausted on date of service March 17, 2020 (D0150) 
and April 21, 2022 (D0210). Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a comprehensive oral 
evaluation (D0150, D0210) provided on July 15, 2022.
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 require physical therapy 
to return to their prior level of function.  The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an LTACH admission is 
not medically necessary, and the enrollee's needs can be met in the current hospital 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 that the enrollee is still unstable and requires short-term additional acute care hospital 
services that can be safely provided at the current facility until they are more appropriate for transfer. 
 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 Stelara. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Stelara. You say that this drug is given to the enrollee in their home. 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 Stelara.   
Benefits for Stelara 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: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Reblozyl. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Reblozyl. 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 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 Reblozyl. Our reviewer says that the 
services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the medication is not FDA-approved for 
the enrollee's condition. The use listed is not indicated, not supported and not recommended in any of the 
CMS-approved compendia. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of Reblozyl have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Reblozyl.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Omeprazole. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the medication. You say that the medication is 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 Omeprazole.   
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: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve additional transportation. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve additional transportation. You say that the enrollee suffers from multiple, 
complex medical problems which require frequent visits for medical care. You also say that the visits are 
medically necessary and critical to helping the enrollee regain function to complete activities of daily living. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's benefit has been exhausted. 
 Medicare does not cover transport in a vehicle that is not an ambulance. However, the Plan offers a 
transportation benefit that exceeds Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plans coverage rules apply in this 
case. The Plan covers a maximum of 24 one-way non-emergency ground transportation trips per year.  
 
We looked at your request, the records in the case file, and the rules. Based on this information, we decided 
that you have exhausted the Plan maximum benefit for coverage of routine transportation. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve additional transportation.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Vertiflex device (22869). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a Vertiflex device. 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 a Vertiflex device. Our reviewer says 
that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found a vertiflex device is experimental. 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 a Vertiflex device have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a Vertiflex device (22869).
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's level of care is beyond 
what can be expected at an alternative level of care such as a skilled nursing facility. 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 enrollee is still unstable and requires short-term additional acute care hospital 
services that can be safely provided at the current facility until they are more appropriate for transfer. 
 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 a Vertiflex device (22869, 22870). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a Vertiflex device. 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 a Vertiflex device. Our reviewer says 
that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found a vertiflex device is experimental. 
 
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 Vertiflex device have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a Vertiflex device (22869, 22870).
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the VIA Disc procedure. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the VIA Disc procedure. You say that the VIA Disc procedure is to 
supplement the enrollee's nucleus pulpous tissue loss which resulted from disc degeneration.  The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the VIA Disc procedure 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 VIA Disc procedure. Our reviewer 
says that the VIA Disc procedure is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the VIA Disc 
procedure is considered an experimental procedure. 
 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 VIA Disc procedure have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve the VIA Disc procedure.
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. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an IRF admission is 
not medically necessary, and the enrollee's needs can be met at an alternate 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 that the enrollee does not meet criteria for admission to an acute inpatient 
rehabilitation facility. The complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not require 
an acute rehab hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. 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 IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for home health services (G0156) provided from February 1, 
2023, to February 28, 2023  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the home health services. You say that the services should be covered as you 
disagree with the denial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the rules say that custodial care is not 
covered. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that custodial care, which does not include services from 
trained medical or paramedical staff, is not covered.  
 
 
  We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of the home health services have not been met. Specifically, we find that the services at issue in this 
case are considered custodial in nature. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for home 
health services (G0156) provided from February 1, 2023, to February 28, 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 the enrollee will benefit from acute inpatient 
rehabilitation level of care with an interdisciplinary team approach.  The Plan denied your request. The Plan 
says an IRF admission is not medically necessary, and the enrollee's needs can be met at an alternate 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 that the enrollee does not meet criteria for admission to an acute inpatient 
rehabilitation facility. The complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not require 
an acute rehab hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. 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 IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve compression stockings identified with code A6507. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the compression stockings. You say that you were diagnosed with 
lymphedema and your legs are two different sizes because of it. You also say that you are asking to be 
reimbursed. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says compression stockings identified with code A6507 
are not covered when there is no qualifying wound. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that compression stockings described by code A6507 
are covered only when they are used to treat an open venous stasis ulcer. Medicare rules also say that 
compression bandages and gradient compression wraps are covered only when they are used as dressings over 
a qualifying wound. 
 
The record does not show that you have open venous stasis ulcers or a qualifying wound. This means that you 
do not have a medical condition for which compression stockings can be covered or paid for by Medicare. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve compression stockings identified with code 
A6507.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a dental filling for tooth #20 (D2391) provided on April 25, 
2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the dental services. You say that the services should be covered as you disagree 
with the denial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says your benefit for the requested item or service has 
already been exhausted. 
 
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, certain limitations apply. The record 
shows your benefit for the requested item or service was exhausted on date of service February 28, 2023. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a dental filling for tooth #20 (D2391) provided on 
April 25, 2023.
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Euflexxa. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve Euflexxa. You say that the enrollee had excellent pain relief from the 
previous right knee Euflexxa injections and no pain relief from the Synvisc One injection. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says that the step therapy requirements have 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 Euflexxa. Our reviewer says that 
Euflexxa is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee has osteoarthritis of the 
knee and has received injections with Euflexxa in March of 2019. However, the enrollee has not tried the 
preferred viscosupplemental treatments such as Monovisc and Orthovisc. Also, there is no contraindications or 
reasons these medications were not considered or that the Plan's additional required drugs would likely be less 
effective or likely have adverse effects for the enrollee. 
 
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 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Euflexxa.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for home health services provided from August 16, 2022, to 
September 12, 2022.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the home health services. You say that the services should be covered as you 
disagree with the denial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the NOA was not received timely. As 
such, this final claim was correctly denied.  
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that an NOA must be submitted within 5 days of the start of 
care date for home health services. NOAs which are received more than 30 days from the timely filing date 
result in no payment being made for the episode of care.  
 
In this case, the start of care date is June 16, 2022. The NOA was not received by the Plan until October 12, 
2022. As more than 30 days passed between the timely filing date and the NOA receipt, no payment can be 
made on this claim. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for home health services provided 
from August 16, 2022, to September 12, 2022.