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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the office visit provided on January 27, 2023, by an OON 
provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the office visit. You say that you are requesting reconsideration for the denied 
claim. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the services were 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 Plan contract says the enrollees POS benefit only applies to covered routine dental services. 
 
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 January 27, 2023, by 
an OON provider.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for  the lesion removal, the biopsy procedure, and the office visit 
provided on February 9, 2023, by an OON provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the lesion removal, the biopsy procedure, and the office visit.. You say that you 
are requesting reconsideration of the denied claim. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this 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 Plan contract says the enrollees POS benefit only applies to 
covered routine dental services. 
 
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 lesion removal, the biopsy procedure, and the 
office visit provided on February 9, 2023, by an OON provider.
Appeal type: ER
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for a emergency room visit provided on May 
01, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for a emergency room visit. You say that you disagree with the 
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 $110 
copayment for emergency care. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $110 copayment for a emergency room visit. This item/service falls within the 
emergency care benefit category. This means that you have been asked to pay the correct amount based on your 
contract with the Plan. This cost sharing is a contractual obligation you agreed to pay when you enrolled in the Plan. However, you are only being asked to pay $71.52 which is less than the required amount. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for a emergency room visit provided on May 01, 
2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the office visit and the destruction of premalignant lesions 
provided on October 03, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the office visit and the destruction of premalignant lesions. 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 office visit and the 
destruction of premalignant lesions provided on October 03, 2022.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for lab testing provided on April 25, 2023, to April 26, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for lab testing. You say that you say that the member does not choose the lab that 
they want, and that the provider must see all patients in the nursing home that need care. 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 
April 25, 2023, to April 26, 2023.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for inpatient hospital stay provided on February 09, 2023, to 
February 13, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for inpatient hospital stay. You say that you are requesting reconsideration for the 
services provided. 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 inpatient hospital stay 
provided on February 09, 2023, to February 13, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the chiropractic services provided on August 29, 2022, to 
December 15, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the chiropractic 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 chiropractic services 
provided on August 29, 2022, to December 15, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a home visit provided on March 14, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for a home visit. You say that the provider was not responsible for obtaining 
authorization. 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 a home visit provided on 
March 14, 2023.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Neulasta. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Neulasta. You say that the services are necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says based on the documentation provided, coverage criteria has not been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare may pay for unlabeled uses for FDA-
approved drugs if they are medically accepted as safe and effective or appropriate for the particular use.  
 
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 Neulasta. Our reviewer says that the 
services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the review has determined that the 
requested use of Neulasta is not FDA-approved for the enrollee's diagnosis. Its use is not supported by one of 
the major drug compendia or by clinical research that appears in a CMS-approved medical journal. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of Neulasta have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Neulasta.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an Optimizer Smart System (0408T). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve an Optimizer Smart System. 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 an Optimizer Smart System. Our 
reviewer says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this 
case. Our physician reviewer found while the clinical studies led to FDA approval in 2019, cardiac contractility 
modulation (CCM) remains the subject of multiple studies examining long-term efficacy, as well as 
randomized, controlled, double-blinded trials to quantify clinical efficacy. Until such statistically rigorous studies are completed, it is premature to presume clinical outcomes and benefit. At the current time, a CCM 
system is not medically necessary in this 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 an Optimizer Smart System have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve an Optimizer Smart System (0408T).
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for eye exam provided on December 15, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for eye exam. You say that you say that the services should be 
covered. 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 vision care. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $30 copayment for eye exam. This item/service falls within the vision 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 eye exam provided on December 
15, 2022.
Appeal type: ER
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for an in-network emergency room (ER) visit 
provided on April 24, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for an in-network emergency room (ER) visit. You say that you 
went to this facility to set up an ear doctor appointment, you did not want to be seen in the ER. They started 
doing vitals without your permission. 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 $95 
copayment for emergency care. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $95 copayment for an in-network emergency room (ER) visit. This item/service falls within the emergency care benefit category. This means that you have been asked to pay the correct 
amount based on your contract with the Plan. This cost sharing is a contractual obligation you agreed to pay 
when you enrolled in the Plan. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for 
an in-network emergency room (ER) visit provided on April 24, 2023.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the electrocardiogram (EKG) provided on February 25, 
2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the electrocardiogram (EKG). 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 electrocardiogram 
(EKG) provided on February 25, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for an in-network debridement of nails 
provided on January 25, 2023, and March 29, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for an in-network debridement of nails. You say that you have to 
have this done every few months and cannot afford the copayment every time. 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 $15 
copayment for podiatry services.  
 
You have been asked to pay a $30 copayment for two in-network debridement of nails visits ($15 x 2 = $30). 
This item/service falls within the podiatry 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. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for an in-network debridement of nails provided on January 25, 
2023, and March 29, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve an interlaminar lumbar or sacral injection (62323). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve an interlaminar lumbar or sacral injection. You say that the services are 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there are in-network providers that are able to provide 
these services. Therefore, coverage criteria have not been met. 
 
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 interlaminar lumbar or sacral injection (62323).
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for skilled nursing facility care provided on November 14, 2022, 
to December 29, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for skilled nursing facility care. You say that you are requesting reconsideration for 
the services provided. 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 skilled nursing facility 
care provided on November 14, 2022, to December 29, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an office visit provided on January 26, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for an office visit. 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 an office visit provided 
on January 26, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for initial nursing facility care provided on August 19, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for initial nursing facility care. You say that the services 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 initial nursing facility 
care provided on August 19, 2022.
Appeal type: Testing
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for an ultrasound provided on February 10, 
2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for an ultrasound. You say that the ultrasound could not be 
completed. 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 $25 
copayment for outpatient diagnostic tests and therapeutic services and supplies. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $25 copayment for an ultrasound. This item/service falls within the outpatient 
diagnostic tests and therapeutic services and supplies 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 ultrasound provided on February 10, 2023.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to reduce the copayment for a specialist office visit provided on March 
06, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to reduce the copayment for a specialist office visit. You say that you disagree with the 
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 $40 
copayment for physician/practitioner services, including doctors office visits. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $40 copayment for a specialist 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. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to reduce the copayment for a specialist office visit provided on March 06, 2023.