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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that you are requesting reconsideration for the denial of 
an IRF admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the inpatient rehabilitation request has been 
denied as not medically necessary.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs do not require an 
acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. 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.  
 
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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the lip biopsy and sedation services provided on April 19, 
2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the outpatient services. You say that you paid for this procedure ahead of time. 
You also say that it was your understanding that you would be reimbursed for this. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the provider in this case has opted out of Medicare. The Plan also says that payment 
cannot be made for services performed by a provider that has opted out of Medicare. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that no Medicare payment may be made to a beneficiary 
for items or services provided directly by a physician or practitioner who has opted out of the program except 
in cases involving emergencies or urgently needed care. 
 
The services at issue in this appeal were provided in a non-urgent, non-emergent situation by the provider who 
has opted out of the Medicare program. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the lip 
biopsy and sedation services provided on April 19, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IGRT. You say that your radiation machine is unable to deliver radiotherapy 
without IGRT. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that medical studies have not shown that this is the 
best treatment for the enrollee's specific condition. 
 
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 IGRT. Our reviewer says that the 
requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found that IGRT is simply being used as routine practice, as there does not seem to be any exceptional 
circumstances with this enrollee necessitating the need for IGRT. While the Halcyon machine has IGRT 
incorporated into all of its treatments, presumably it is not billed if not 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 IGRT have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pre-approve image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT).
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve abiraterone acetate (Zytiga). You asked the Plan to pre-approve the requested medication. You say that there is no patient assistance 
program for this medication. 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 abiraterone acetate (Zytiga).  
 
Benefits for the requested 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: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the urine polymerase chain reaction (PCR) panel testing 
provided on May 4, 2023, and billed with codes 87798, 87653, and 87481. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the urine PCR panel testing. You say that this testing was medically necessary. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this testing should be billed with a single panel code. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that a panel cannot be unbundled and billed as 
individual components. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. This test was not billed with a single panel code as required. Based 
on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the urine PCR panel testing have not been 
met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the urine polymerase chain reaction (PCR) 
panel testing provided on May 4, 2023, and billed with codes 87798, 87653, and 87481.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an office visit to be provided by an out-of-network 
(OON) provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve an office visit. You say that you feel this should not have been denied. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says this is not medically necessary. 
 
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 
an office visit to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Feraheme. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve the medication. You say that the medication is medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee has not tried and failed preferred medications. 
 
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 the medication. Our reviewer says that 
the requested medication does not meet the requirements for step therapy guidelines. Our physician reviewer 
found the record indicates that you have iron deficiency anemia. The requested medication is a new start. The 
provided records do not indicate that you have tried and failed the plan's preferred step one alternative. The 
record does not indicate that you have a contraindication to or would have an adverse effect from the plan's 
preferred step one alternative. The elements of the coverage criteria are not satisfied. The requested service 
cannot be recommended. 
 
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 medication have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve Feraheme.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for lab testing provided on May 03, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for lab testing. You say that you are requesting reconsideration stating that you are a 
urine drug reference lab and the specimen was sent from the doctors office to your lab for confirmation. 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 lab testing provided on 
May 03, 2023.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the urine polymerase chain reaction (PCR) panel testing 
provided on December 28, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the urine PCR panel testing. You say that this testing was medically necessary. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the PCR testing is considered unproven and 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 pay for the urine PCR panel testing. Our reviewer 
says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found that the documentation only shows a diagnosis of R30.0 - painful urination. It is not 
clear why this specific testing was completed. Thus, this testing is not considered 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 the urine PCR panel testing have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pay for the urine polymerase chain reaction (PCR) panel testing provided on December 
28, 2022.
Appeal type: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for home health services provided on March 8, 2023 to April 6, 
2023. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for the home health services. You say that the services were medically necessary. 
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 March 8, 2023. The NOA was not received by the Plan. 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 on March 8, 2023 
to April 6, 2023.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pay for radiology services coded as 70450 performed on April 27, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the radiology services. You say that 70450 should be covered because the 
enrollee had multiple procedures on the same date of service. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that 
70450 is not eligible for separate payment because it is bundled into payment for code 70496, performed on the 
same date by the same provider. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare health plans must make reasonable and 
diligent efforts to gather and forward to the IRE information regarding its decision to deny coverage or 
payment. 
 
The Plan has not made reasonable and diligent efforts to gather and forward to us information regarding their 
decision to deny your request. The case file did not include proof that code 70496 was billed for date of service 
April 27, 2023, by the same provider who performed code 70450. Without documentation showing 70496 was 
billed by the same provider for the same date of service, we cannot confirm whether the Plans rationale was 
correct in denying 70450. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pay for radiology services coded as 70450 
performed on April 27, 2023.  
 
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: Home Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health services provided from October 2, 2022 to 
October 31, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the home health services as billed. You say that this service was medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the claim has not been billed with the correct admission 
date. 
 The Plan follows Medicare rules. The rules say that for home health services that are continuing from 2021, a 
NOA must be submitted for the first period of care in 2022, using the first date of the period as the admission 
date. Subsequent claims must report this new date as the admission date in order for the claim to be matched to 
the correct NOA.  
 
We reviewed the file and the Medicare rules. We find that the admission date reported on the claim at issue 
does not match the date for the NOA which is filed for the first date in 2022 as required. Based on this 
information, we find that the Medicare rules for payment of the claim at issue have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the home health services provided from October 2, 2022 to 
October 31, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an office visit provided on February 16, 2023, by an out-of-
network (OON) provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for an office visit. You say that you are appealing the denial of payment. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says this provider is out-of-network and authorization was not obtained. 
 
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 February 16, 2023, by 
an out-of-network (OON) provider.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve RFA. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the RFA. You say that you are appealing with supporting records. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the request 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 RFA. Our reviewer says that the 
requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found that sacroiliac joint RFA is considered experimental/investigational and is not medically 
necessary for the treatment of sacroiliac joint pain due to sacroiliac dysfunction. 
 
 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 RFA have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve RFA.
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 requesting reconsideration for the denial of 
an IRF admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says criteria for admission to the acute IRF setting 
have not been 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 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. 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.  
 
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 is determined to walk independently and 
needs additional physical therapy in order to do so. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says admission to 
an 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 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. 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 therapy 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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for chiropractic services provided on April 19, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for chiropractic services. You say that they used the wrong code for the visit. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says this service is excluded from Medicare coverage. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that the only chiropractic service Medicare covers is 
manual manipulation of the spine to correct a subluxation.  
 
The records show that the service at issue is not manual manipulation of the spine. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pay for chiropractic services provided on April 19, 2023.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a power mobility device (PMD) to be provided by an 
out-of-network (OON) provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the PMD. You say that the enrollee would benefit from a power mobility 
device to complete activities of daily living within the home and will be able to safely use it. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says this device 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 
a power mobility device (PMD) to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.