Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for the inpatient hospital care provided from 
January 20, 2023, to January 24, 2023. 
 You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for the inpatient hospital care. You say that you are appealing the 
extra admitting charges due to the hospital sending you home before they could fix your problems. 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 $250 
copayment each day for days 1 to 5 for Medicare-covered hospital care each time you are admitted.  
 
You have been asked to pay a $250 copayment each day for the inpatient hospital care. This service falls within 
the inpatient hospital 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 inpatient 
hospital care provided from January 20, 2023, to January 24, 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 the IRF care. You say that the IRF admission is medically necessary for the 
enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the criteria for IRF admission. 
 
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 
does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and 
an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. There is not a reasonable expectation that the enrollee will be able 
to fully participate in and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF as 
medically necessary care can be provided in a different 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 IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that IRF admission is medically necessary for the 
enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the Medicare guidelines for IRF admission were not met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
  We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found that the complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does 
not require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The 
enrollee was admitted for respiratory failure, pneumonia, and congestive heart failure. Medical problems are 
stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation needs.  
 
The enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational 
therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. While the medical record supports 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. 
 
There is not a reasonable expectation that this 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 IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an office visit provided on January 25, 2023, by an out-of-
network (OON) provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for an office visit. You say that you want the referenced claim for reconsideration. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there is no referral from a contracted network provider. There are 
contracted network physicians who provide the care rendered. 
 
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 an office visit provided on January 25, 2023, by an 
out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the x-ray services provided on April 20, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the x-ray services. You say that the provider is certified to provide these services. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that unauthorized, out-of-network care is not covered. 
 
Medicare rules say that plans can require enrollees to get care from network providers. The contract with the 
Plan says that the Plan has to pay for care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving emergencies, 
out of area urgent care and pre-approved care. 
 
The provider of the item(s)/service(s) at issue in this appeal is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan did not pre-approve the item(s)/service(s) at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay 
for the item(s)/service(s). Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the x-ray services 
provided on April 20, 2023.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the x-ray (73600) provided on March 28, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for radiologic examination. You say that multiple exams were done on the same date 
of service. You say that medical records submitted supports CPT code 73600-26-LT. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says payment for code 73600-26-LT is bundled into payment for code 73610-26-LT. 
 
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, we have confirmed that code 
73600-26-LT is a column II code to column I code 73610-26-LT. Though modifier LT was used, this was the 
same modifier as the Column I code and does not provide a clinically appropriate reason that the Column II 
code can be separately paid. Medicare billing criteria have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pay for radiologic examination (x-ray) of the ankle; 2 views provided on March 28, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an injection and an office visit provided on May 04, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for an injection and an office visit. You say that you are requesting reconsideration 
of the denied claim. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that unauthorized, out-of-network care is not 
covered. 
 
Medicare rules say that plans can require enrollees to get care from network providers. The contract with the 
Plan says that the Plan has to pay for care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving emergencies, 
out of area urgent care and pre-approved care.  
The provider of the item(s)/service(s) at issue in this appeal is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan 
did not pre-approve the item(s)/service(s) at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay 
for the item(s)/service(s). Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an injection and an 
office visit provided on May 04, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 99100 billed for date of service March 15, 
2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 99100. You say that this service was medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says procedure code 99100 is considered bundled and not separately 
payable.  
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate procedure code. 
 
We find that procedure code 99100 has a status indicator of B on the Physician Fee Schedule. This means that 
procedure code 99100 is not separately payable. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of procedure code 99100 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay 
for procedure code 99100 billed for date of service March 15, 2023.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the outpatient orthopedic services to be provided by an 
OON provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the outpatient orthopedic services. You say that you are requesting 
reconsideration of the denied authorization. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says orthopedic services 
can be provided in-network. 
 
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 
the outpatient orthopedic services to be provided by an OON provider.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has 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's care needs and for them to receive therapy services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that 
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 found to be medically reasonable and necessary for this enrollee. Our physician reviewer 
found the medical record overall complies with the various documentation requirements for IRF admission. 
There is every reason to expect that the enrollee will participate in and benefit from services to include at 
minimum physical and occupational therapy, physician oversight polypharmacy and careful titration of their 
cardiac medications, and case manager coordination of any additional services that might be needed to make a 
sustainable return home. Therefore, the requested inpatient rehab facility admission is approved. 
 
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 been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-approve 
acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.  
 
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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the debridement provided on April 19, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the debridement. You say that you are appealing the denial with supporting 
documentation. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that unauthorized, out-of-network care is not 
covered. 
 
Medicare rules say that plans can require enrollees to get care from network providers. The contract with the 
Plan says that the Plan has to pay for care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving emergencies, 
out of area urgent care and pre-approved care.  
The provider of the item(s)/service(s) at issue in this appeal is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan 
did not pre-approve the item(s)/service(s) at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay 
for the item(s)/service(s). Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the debridement 
provided on April 19, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a routine vision examination provided on April 10, 2023, by 
an out-of-network (OON) provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for a routine vision examination. You say that you are appealing eye exam claim 
denial. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says if you receive services not covered by our plan or services 
obtained out-of-network and were authorized, you are responsible for paying the full cost of services. 
 
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 a routine vision examination provided on April 10, 
2023, by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the paramedic intercept services.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the paramedic intercept services. You say that the enrollee's neighbors called 911 
when they discovered her disoriented and immobile.  
 You also say that the ambulance took the enrollee to the emergency room and you are asking how this could  
be considered not medically necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this item is not a covered 
benefit. 
 
The rules say that Medicare pays for advanced life support (ALS), in accordance with state and local laws by 
an emergency medical technician (EMT) intermediate or EMT-Paramedic only in certain circumstances. 
Medicare allows ALS paramedic intercept services only when the services are furnished in a rural area as 
defined above. It is noted that the only State in which these criteria are met is New York. 
 
The paramedic intercept services at issue in this appeal were not furnished in an area that is considered rural 
according to the Medicare definition. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the 
paramedic intercept services.
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 cannot stand, bathe, use the bathroom or 
do any daily functions. 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 enrollees medical problems are stable and there are no complex nursing or 
rehabilitation needs. While the medical record supports a need for physical or occupational therapy, there is no 
documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different 
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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for each office visit provided on January 12, 
2023, to March 16, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for each office visit. You say that you want to appeal the amount 
being charged. 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 $40 
copayment for physician/practitioner services, including doctors office visits. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $40 copayment for each office visit. This item/service falls within the 
physician/practitioner services, including doctors office visits 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. The total you owe is $280 ($40 copayment x 7 
visits = $280). Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for each office visit 
provided on January 12, 2023, to March 16, 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's current condition and functional 
deficits, as well as multiple comorbidities, meets full IRF criteria based on Medicare guidelines. The enrollee's 
needs cannot be safely met by home health. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says based on Medicare 
guidelines, the IRF services requested do not meet the requirements for approval.  
 
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 hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. The enrollee 
was admitted for gastrointestinal bleeding. Medical problems are stable. There are no complex nursing or 
rehabilitation needs. While 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. There is not a reasonable expectation that the enrollee will be able to fully participate in 
and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve 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 Prolia. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve Prolia. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the criteria 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 Prolia. Our physician reviewer found 
that the enrollee has osteoporosis. The Plan requires a trial of zoledronic acid or a history of osteoporotic 
fracture before they will approve the requested drug. There is no indication the enrollee has had an 
osteoporosis-related fracture. The enrollee has not tried and failed the required drug. There is no documentation 
provided indicating that the Plan's required drug would likely be less effective and/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 Prolia have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pre-approve Prolia.