Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the coinsurance for the Prolia injection (J0897) provided on 
June 30, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the coinsurance for the Prolia injection (J0897). You say that the cost share is 
wrong. 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 20% 
coinsurance for Medicare Part B prescription drugs. 
 
You have been asked to pay 20% coinsurance for the Prolia injection (J0897). This item/service falls within the 
Medicare Part B prescription drugs 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 coinsurance for 
the Prolia injection (J0897) provided on June 30, 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 the enrollee meets Medicare criteria for acute 
inpatient rehabilitation and will benefit from acute inpatient rehabilitation that cannot be accomplished at a 
lower level of care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an IRF admission is not medically necessary, 
but skilled therapies as an outpatient or at a skilled nursing facility (SNF) may be approved upon request.  
 
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 clinical documentation does not specify any active medical comorbidities or complex 
functional impairments (debility). Thus the complexity of the enrollee's documented nursing, medical and 
rehabilitation needs would not be expected to require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary 
approach to rehabilitation care. Clinical documentation supports the need for ongoing skilled therapy but does 
not support the medical necessity of an intensive rehabilitation regimen in an IRF setting. The IRF admission 
criteria are not met.  
 
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 laboratory services provided on March 21, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for laboratory services. You say that this service is supported in the records. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says that unauthorized, out-of-network care is not covered. 
 
Medicare rules say that plans can require enrollees to get care from network providers. The contract with the 
Plan says that the Plan has to pay for care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving emergencies, 
out of area urgent care and pre-approved care. 
 
The Plan had network providers available who were capable of providing the items/services at issue in this appeal. (Please note, items and services received in-network are still subject to any other Medicare coverage 
rules that apply.) 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 laboratory services provided on March 21, 2023.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a lightweight portable motorized/power wheelchair 
(K0012). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a PWC. You say that you need a mobility scooter and not a wheelchair. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says this is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that a PMD will not be covered if the patient does not 
have mobility deficit that impairs their participation in MRADLs, the patients condition can be ameliorated by 
a walker, cane or manual wheelchair, or the patient is not capable of safely operating the requested PMD.  
 
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 PWC. Our reviewer says that the requested PWC is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found there is inadequate documentation 
that you have a personal mobility deficit that impairs participation in mobility related activities of daily living 
such as toileting, feeding, grooming and bathing in customary locations within the home. The reviewer found 
that there is no documentation that your mobility deficit cannot be helped by the use of a walker, cane or 
manual wheelchair. The reviewer also found that there is no documentation that you can safely operate a power 
mobility device. Therefore, the reviewer found that the requested PWC 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 PWC have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pre-approve a lightweight portable motorized/power wheelchair (K0012).
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 an IRF admission is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says an IRF admission is not medically necessary, but skilled therapies as an 
outpatient or at a skilled nursing facility (SNF) may be approved upon request.  
 
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 clinical documentation does not specify any active medical comorbidities or complex 
functional impairments (debility). Thus the complexity of the enrollee's documented nursing, medical and 
rehabilitation needs would not be expected to require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary 
approach to rehabilitation care. Clinical documentation supports the need for ongoing skilled therapy but does 
not support the medical necessity of an intensive rehabilitation regimen in an IRF setting. Clinical 
documentation does not show that the enrollee would tolerate an intensive rehabilitation regimen in an IRF 
setting. The IRF admission criteria are not met.  
 
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: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Eylea. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve these services. You say that you disagree with the denial. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the step therapy requirement is not 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 these services. Our reviewer says that 
the services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has not tried and failed the 
Plan's required drug, Byooviz. The records do not show that the required drug would be contraindicated or less 
effective; therefore, the Eylea is not reasonable or medically necessary. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of these services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve Eylea.
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 admission is medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the criteria for the LTACH 
admission.  
 
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 receiving acute hospital care, and acute care services have not been 
denied. The documentation does not support that the enrollee in this case requires services at the LTACH that 
are not available at the acute care hospital where they are currently receiving care. There are no required 
medical services identified that are available at the LTACH, that are not available at the current health care 
setting being offered 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 long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services.
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Vabysmo. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve these services. You say that you disagree with the denial. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the step therapy requirement is not 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 these services. Our reviewer says that 
the services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has not tried and failed the 
Plan's required drug, Byooviz. The records do not show that the required drug would be contraindicated or less 
effective; therefore, Vabysmo is not reasonable or medically necessary. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of these services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve Vabysmo.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home visit provided on August 15, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the home visit. You say that you do not agree with the denial of payment. 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 Plan had network providers available who were capable of providing the items/services at issue in this appeal. (Please note, items and services received in-network are still subject to any other Medicare coverage 
rules that apply.) 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 home visit provided on August 15, 2023.
Appeal type: ER
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for the emergency room services provided on 
July 25, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for the emergency room services. You say that the cost share is 
wrong. 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 $90 
copayment for emergency care. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $90 copayment for the emergency room services. This item/service falls within 
the emergency care 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 emergency room 
services provided on July 25, 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 the enrollee remains significantly off from their 
baseline mobility. You say the interdisciplinary intensive therapy interventions cannot be manage at a lower 
level of care such as a skilled nursing facility (SNF). You would like reconsideration based on the records 
submitted. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says admission to the 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 the documentation does not specify any active medical comorbidities or complex 
functional impairments (metabolic encephalopathy is documented to have been resolved, no supporting 
documentation of myopathy). The documentation supports the need for ongoing skilled therapy but does not 
support the medical necessity of an intensive rehabilitation regimen in an IRF setting. Thus, the complexity of 
the enrollee's documented nursing, medical, and rehabilitation needs would not be expected to require an acute 
hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. 
 
 
 
IRF criteria not met.  
 
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: Outpatient Mental Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for psychotherapy provided on June 02, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for psychotherapy. You say that this service is supported in the records proving 
medical necessity. 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 Plan had network providers available who were capable of providing the items/services at issue in this 
appeal. (Please note, items and services received in-network are still subject to any other Medicare coverage 
rules that apply.) 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 psychotherapy provided on June 02, 2023.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve PRALUENT. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve PRALUENT. You say that the enrollee needs for treatment. 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 PRALUENT.   
Benefits for PRALUENT 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: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the lab panel provided on August 21, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the panel. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the panel should be billed 
with one unit of one code. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that for tests for infectious agents, a single laboratory 
procedure shall be reported as one unit of service whether it generates one or multiple results. Multiple codes 
should only be used when multiple procedures, multiple methodologies, or multiple test kits are medically 
necessary and used to perform the test.  
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The documentation supports that this panel used the nucleic acid probe technique. There is no evidence that multiple procedures, multiple methodologies, or multiple kits were 
used in this case. As such, a single code with one unit of service should be used. Based on this information, we 
decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the testing panel have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pay for the lab panel provided on August 21, 2023.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to issue additional payment for the treatment of complications (post-
surgical)-unusual circumstances, by report (D9930) provided on October 25, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to issue additional payment for this dental service. You say that you are requesting a 
reconsideration of the Plan's denial for payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says your benefit for 
the dental service provided 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 dental service provided was exhausted on date of service October 25, 2023.   
Specifically, the Plans contract states that there is a $2,000 allowable dental benefit. The record shows that the 
Plan has issued payments in the total amount of $2,000 ($140 + $1,773 + $87) for dental services provided in 
the 2023 calendar year. Therefore, you have exhausted the allowable benefit for the service at issue in this case. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to issue additional payment for the treatment of 
complications (post-surgical)-unusual circumstances, by report (D9930) provided on October 25, 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 an IRF admission is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the services the enrollee needs can be provided safely in other settings, for 
example, a skilled nursing facility (SNF), home with home health services or home with outpatient therapy.  
 
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 clinical documentation does not specify any active medical comorbidities or complex 
functional impairments. Thus the complexity of the enrollee's documented nursing, medical and rehabilitation 
needs would not be expected to require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to 
rehabilitation care. Clinical documentation supports the need for ongoing skilled therapy but does not support 
the medical necessity of an intensive rehabilitation regimen in an IRF setting. The IRF admission criteria are 
not met.  
 
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.