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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for an acute inpatient stay provided on July 02, 
2023, to July 06, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for an acute inpatient stay. You say that you should not have this 
large 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 $325 
copayment for inpatient hospital care. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $325 copayment for an acute inpatient stay. This item/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. You have been asked to pay a total of $1,005 for the inpatient hospital stay ($325 
copayment x 3 days = $1,005). You have not been charged for the day you were discharged. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for an acute inpatient stay provided on July 02, 
2023, to July 06, 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 you are requesting reconsideration of the denied IRF 
admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the coverage criteria for admission to an IRF has 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 your nursing, medical, and rehabilitation needs does not require an 
acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. You were admitted for 
gastrointestinal bleeding. Your medical problems are stable. There are no complex nursing or rehabilitation 
needs. You do 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 you 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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve sacroiliac (SI) joint radiofrequency ablation (RFA). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve SI joint RFA. You say that the services are necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says medical necessity has not been established. Therefore, coverage criteria have not been 
met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that items and services that are not medically 
necessary are not covered.  
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve SI joint RFA. Our reviewer says that 
the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found there is insufficient literature to support the safety and efficacy, as defined by Medicare rules, 
of the requested service in the enrollee's specific clinical condition. The record provided does not establish the 
medical necessity and reasonableness, as defined by Medicare rules, of the requested service. The elements of the coverage criteria are not satisfied. The requested service is not 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 SI joint RFA have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve sacroiliac (SI) joint radiofrequency ablation (RFA).
Appeal type: Hospice
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the physical therapy services rendered from November 16, 
2022, to November 30, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for these services. You say that the enrollee was not on hospice. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says Original Medicare is responsible for payment. 
 Medicare rules say that Original Medicare, not the Plan, is responsible for all Medicare-covered non-hospice 
services. Original Medicare is responsible for payment for services until the first day of the month after the 
hospice election has been revoked or terminated. 
 
The enrollee ended Medicare Hospice benefits on November 8, 2022. The services in question were provided 
before the end of that month. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the physical therapy 
services rendered from November 16, 2022, to November 30, 2022.
Appeal type: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the ambulance response and treatment without transport 
services received on August 3, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the ambulance response and treatment without transport services. You say that 
the services were medically necessary, but you were told if someone was going to be staying with the enrollee 
it was not medically necessary for them to go to the hospital. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says 
without transport there are no payable services. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare does not pay for ambulance services when 
there is no transport.  
 
The ambulance company did not provide transport services on August 3, 2023. The ambulance benefit is a 
transportation benefit. When there is no transport, neither Medicare nor the Plan pays for the services provided. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the ambulance response and treatment without 
transport services received on August 3, 2023.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a portable oxygen concentrator. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a portable oxygen concentrator. You say that you live alone without private 
home care, and your home is up 16 step steps from the sidewalk. You say that if you were to go out for a walk 
one of the tanks could trip you and you would not be able to pick one up if it falls. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says a portable oxygen concentrator is not medically necessary. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that patients who are mobile in the home and would benefit 
from the use of portable oxygen in the home, may qualify for coverage of a portable oxygen system either by 
itself, or to use in addition to a stationary oxygen system. Oxygen is coverable when medically necessary for 
patients with hypoxemia who meet certain blood gas evidence requirements. In reviewing the arterial PO2 
levels and the arterial oxygen saturation percentages, variations in oxygen measurements that may result from 
such factors as the patient's age, the patients skin pigmentation, the altitude level, or the patient's decreased 
oxygen carrying capacity, must be taken into account. For patients who do not exhibit hypoxemia according to 
the above criteria, oxygen may be coverable when medically reasonable and necessary for patients who do not 
have a non-covered indication.  
 
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 portable oxygen concentrator. Our 
reviewer says that a portable oxygen concentrator is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found 
that you have a diagnosis of COPD but are not on home supplemental oxygen. The medical records do not 
contain any oxygenation measurements that would indicate a need for supplemental oxygen. Oxygen 
saturations at rest and with walking are 91% and above. Therefore, a portable oxygen concentrator is not 
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 portable oxygen concentrator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pre-approve a portable oxygen concentrator.
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 these services are medically necessary 
for the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee is receiving proper care in their 
current setting. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that LTACH services are covered if they are medically 
necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of the enrollee. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve the LTACH services. Our reviewer says 
that the requested LTACH care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the record does not support that an LTACH would provide services that are not 
available at the acute care hospital where the enrollee is currently receiving 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 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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve closure of intestinal cutaneous fistula performed as 
outpatient (44640). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve closure of intestinal cutaneous fistula performed as outpatient. You say that 
the services are necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says medical necessity has not been 
established. Therefore, coverage criteria have not been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that items and services that are not medically 
necessary are not covered.  
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve closure of intestinal cutaneous fistula 
performed as outpatient. Our reviewer says that the requested items/services are not considered medically 
reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found based on the medical records provided and 
review of the CMS 2023 Inpatient Only List, there is no documentation that the closure of the intestinal cutaneous fistula (CPT code 44640) performed as outpatient at issue in this case meets all Medicare criteria for 
medically reasonable and necessary and safe and effective for the enrollee. The procedure is on the 2023 
inpatient only list; provided records indicate no medical necessity to perform the procedure (CPT code 44640) 
as an outpatient. The health plan has stated that it would cover the procedure if performed as an inpatient. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of closure of intestinal cutaneous fistula performed as outpatient have not been 
met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve closure of intestinal cutaneous fistula 
performed as outpatient (44640).
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 88305 billed for July 5, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for these services. You say that you disagree with the denial. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says procedure code 88305 is 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 88305 is Level IV - Surgical pathology, gross and 
microscopic examination Abortion - spontaneous/missed Artery, biopsy Bone marrow, biopsy Bone exostosis 
Brain/meninges, other than for tumor resection Breast, biopsy, not requiring microscopic evaluation of surgical 
margins Breast, reduction mammoplasty Bronchus, biopsy Cell block, any source Cervix, biopsy Colon, biopsy 
Duodenum, biopsy Endocervix, curettings/biopsy Endometrium, curettings/biopsy Esophagus, biopsy 
Extremity, amputation, traumatic Fallopian tube, biopsy Fallopian tube, ectopic pregnancy Femoral head, 
fracture Fingers/toes, amputation, non-traumatic Gingiva/oral mucosa, biopsy Heart valve Joint, resection Kidney, biopsy Larynx, biopsy Leiomyoma(s), uterine myomectomy - without uterus Lip, biopsy/wedge 
resection Lung, transbronchial biopsy Lymph node, biopsy Muscle, biopsy Nasal mucosa, biopsy 
Nasopharynx/oropharynx, biopsy Nerve, biopsy Odontogenic/dental cyst Omentum, biopsy Ovary with or 
without tube, non-neoplastic Ovary, biopsy/wedge resection Parathyroid gland Peritoneum, biopsy Pituitary 
tumor Placenta, other than third trimester Pleura/pericardium - biopsy/tissue Polyp, cervical/endometrial Polyp, 
colorectal Polyp, stomach/small intestine Prostate, needle biopsy Prostate, TUR Salivary gland, biopsy Sinus, 
paranasal biopsy Skin, other than cyst/tag/debridement/plastic repair Small intestine, biopsy Soft tissue, other 
than tumor/mass/lipoma/debridement Spleen Stomach, biopsy Synovium Testis, other than 
tumor/biopsy/castration Thyroglossal duct/brachial cleft cyst Tongue, biopsy Tonsil, biopsy Trachea, biopsy 
Ureter, biopsy Urethra, biopsy Urinary bladder, biopsy Uterus, with or without tubes and ovaries, for prolapse 
Vagina, biopsy Vulva/labia, biopsy. 
 
We find that CPT code 88305 is not supported in the medical record. Specifically, the records show that the 
specimen examined was a gallbladder and the billed code is not appropriate for this type of specimen. 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 pay for procedure code 88305 billed for July 5, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to reduce the copayment for an acute inpatient stay provided on May 
10, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to reduce the copayment for an acute inpatient stay. You say that you feel you should only 
pay the $20 copayment for urgent care, not a specialist visit. 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 an acute inpatient stay. 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. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to reduce the copayment for an acute inpatient stay provided on May 10, 2023.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Omeprazole. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Omeprazole. You say that the medication is medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the medication is not covered as a medical benefit under the Plan. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare Part B generally does not pay for self-
administered drugs. The self-administered drugs requested here are not among the types which are covered by 
Medicare Part B. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Omeprazole.  Benefits for Omeprazole 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: 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 these services are medically necessary 
for the enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee is receiving medically necessary 
acute and/or critical care. 
 
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 record does not support that the enrollee requires services at an LTACH that are 
not available at the current acute care hospital. 
 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: 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 enrollee is needing LTACH 
admission and is ready to transfer to this level of care for complex medical and pulmonary management, 
frequent nursing care, respiratory therapy care, daily physician management, telemetry, continuous pulse 
oximetry monitoring, frequent vitals, radiology, labs, and physical, occupational and speech therapy. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee needs to complete treatments in the current hospital. The Plan 
says services may be provided at a lower level of care. 
 
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 does not require services at the LTACH that are not available at the acute 
care hospital. There are no services available at the LTACH that the enrollee requires that are not available at 
the health care setting being offered by the health plan. Given there are offered alternatives, LTACH is not 
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 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: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for laboratory services provided on June 29, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for laboratory services. You say that this was medically necessary and should be 
covered. 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 laboratory services 
provided on June 29, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the genicular nerve block. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the genicular nerve block. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
genicular nerve block 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 genicular nerve block. Our reviewer 
says that the genicular nerve block is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the genicular 
nerve block is the subject of ongoing clinical trials and is considered experimental and investigational therapy. 
 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 genicular nerve block have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve the genicular nerve block.