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 admission is medically necessary for the enrollee. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says based on the available information, admission to IRF is not 
reasonable and necessary, as the enrollee's condition does not meet the Medicare criteria. 
 
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. 
 
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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the oxygen equipment provided on April 14, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the oxygen equipment. 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 the oxygen equipment 
provided on April 14, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for an office visit provided on March 13, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for an office visit. You say that you do not think you should be 
responsible for this copayment. 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 $30 
copayment for in-network services received from a level 1 specialist physician. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $30 copayment for an office visit. This item/service falls within the in-network 
services received from a level 1 specialist physician 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 an office visit provided on March 13, 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 requires acute inpatient rehabilitation to 
return to prior independent level of functioning. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's 
records do not show you need an intensive team for your care. Services needed may be provided safely in a 
lower level of care. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section.  
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. 
 
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 lab testing provided on January 05, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for lab testing. You say that you say that the services were ordered by an in-network 
provider with no control over the laboratory used and should not be penalized. 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 
January 05, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the office visit provided on March 20, 2023, by an OON 
provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the office visit. You say that prior authorization is not needed for this service. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the service was not authorized. 
 
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 the office visit provided on March 20, 2023, by an 
OON provider.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for office visit provided on February 20, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for office visit. You say that you believe the services are medically necessary. 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 office visit provided on 
February 20, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for initial observation care (procedure code 99220) rendered on 
June 8, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. You say that this should be paid for. The Plan denied your request. 
The Plan says Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 99220 remains not supported. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate CPT code. 
 
In this case, the CPT Code Manual definition of code 99220 is "Initial observation care, per day, for the 
evaluation and management of a patient, which requires these 3 key components: A comprehensive history; A 
comprehensive examination; and Medical decision making of high complexity. Counseling and/or coordination 
of care with other physicians, other qualified health care professionals, or agencies are provided consistent with 
the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the problem(s) requiring admission to outpatient hospital "observation status" are of high severity. Typically, 70 minutes are spent at the 
bedside and on the patient's hospital floor or unit." 
 
We asked our coder to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to determine if the 
Plan was correct in denying the request to pay for the services. Our reviewer says that the services at issue in 
this case were not supported by the medical records. Our reviewer found that the documentation from this date 
showed an appropriate examination. The enrollee required testing and monitoring and awaited physical therapy 
and social services. However, the documentation did not support a comprehensive history as required and there 
was insufficient support of decision making of high complexity for that date. 
 
We looked at this coder's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of the services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pay for initial observation care (procedure code 99220) rendered on June 8, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the debridement provided on April 27, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the debridement. You say that you are requesting reconsideration due to 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 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 27, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for each hospital outpatient clinic visit 
provided on April 05, 2023, to May 30, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for each hospital outpatient clinic visit. You say that you have 
never been charged out of pocket for these services. 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 $300 
copayment for Medicare-covered outpatient hospital services. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $300 copayment for each hospital outpatient clinic visit. This item/service falls 
within the Medicare-covered outpatient hospital services 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. However, since the allowed amount for each 
service is less than the standard copayment, you only owe $468.56 ($117.14 x 4 visits = $468.56). Therefore, 
we decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for each hospital outpatient clinic visit provided 
on April 05, 2023, to May 30, 2023.
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. You say that you disagree with the Plan's denial. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says the requested drug does not meet step therapy criteria. 
 
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 reviewer says that the 
documentation does not support that the requested drug meets step therapy criteria. Our physician reviewer 
found you  
The documentation does not support that you have tried and failed one intravenous bisphosphonate therapy 
(such as zoledronic acid). The documentation does not support that one intravenous bisphosphonate therapy 
(such as zoledronic acid) would likely be less effective and/or likely have adverse effects. Therefore, you do 
not meet criteria for the requested drug. 
 
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.
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 admission to LTACH will further 
maximize the enrollee's potential. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee is receiving 
appropriate in-patient acute care and is currently unstable for transfer to an LTACH. 
 
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 there are no services available at the LTACH that the enrollee requires 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: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Magnetic resonance (eg, proton) imaging, brain 
(including brain stem) (70553) 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a Magnetic resonance imaging. You say that services are medically 
necessary for the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says it was determined to be not reasonable 
and medically necessary as member's physical exam did not reveal neurological signs and the member did not 
identify any neurologic symptoms. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that MRIs are covered only when they are medically 
necessary.  
 
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 Magnetic resonance imaging. Our 
reviewer says that the service is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found a brain MRI 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 a Magnetic resonance imaging have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a Magnetic resonance (eg, proton) imaging, brain (including brain stem) 
(70553)
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the deductible for an out-of-network office visit provided on 
March 15, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the deductible for an out-of-network office visit. You say that you were told to see 
this provider, and you thought that they were in-network, since the clinic was in-network. 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 $750 
deductible for Physician/Practitioner services, including doctor's office visits.  
 You have been asked to pay $169.40 toward the $750 deductible for an out-of-network office visit. This 
item/service falls within the Physician/Practitioner services, including doctor's 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. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to waive the deductible for an out-of-network office visit provided on March 15, 2023.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for an in-network inpatient mental health stay 
provided from April 7, 2023, to April 13, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for an in-network inpatient mental health stay. You say that you 
are not a danger to yourself or others, the provider put the wrong information on this claim. You should not 
have to pay this copayment. 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 $275 
copayment per day, for days 1-6 for inpatient services in a psychiatric hospital.  
 You were in the hospital for 6 days, resulting in a $1650 total copayment ($275 x 6 = $1650). 
 
You have been asked to pay a $1650 copayment for an in-network inpatient mental health stay. This 
item/service falls within the inpatient services in a psychiatric hospital 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 an in-network inpatient mental health stay provided from April 7, 
2023, to April 13, 2023.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the laboratory services provided on December 13, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the laboratory services. 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 the laboratory services 
provided on December 13, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the laboratory services provided on March 10, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the laboratory services. 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 the laboratory services 
provided on March 10, 2023.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the laboratory services provided on December 20, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the laboratory services. 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 the laboratory services 
provided on December 20, 2022.