Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the intraosseous ablation of the basivertebral nerve. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the intraosseous ablation of the basivertebral nerve. You say that the 
enrollee has tried and failed conservative treatment without relief and the procedure is safe and effective. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says the Intracept procedure on L3-L5 is not medically necessary because 
there have been no specific studies done to identify that the BVN is the cause of the enrollee's pain. 
 
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 intraosseous ablation of the 
basivertebral nerve. Our reviewer says that the requested items/services are not considered medically 
reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer found the MRI shows facet degenerative disc 
disease and foraminal stenosis at multiple levels.  
 
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 intraosseous ablation of the basivertebral nerve have not been met. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the intraosseous ablation of the basivertebral 
nerve.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for lab testing provided on November 20, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for lab testing. 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 lab testing provided on 
November 20, 2022.
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 would have a maximized 
benefit from a five to one nurse to patient ratio for more individualized care needs versus at a lower level of 
skilled nursing facility care 20-1 ratio. This more individualized care has been proven to reduce the return to 
hospitalized. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee is receiving appropriate in-patient acute 
care and does not require transfer to a Long-Term Acute Care Hospital. 
 
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: Outpatient Mental Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an outpatient therapy visit provided on November 01, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for an outpatient therapy visit. You say that you depend on the facility staff to verify 
eligibility and to obtain 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 an outpatient therapy 
visit provided on November 01, 2022.
Appeal type: Outpatient Mental Health
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an office visit provided on September 15, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for an office visit. You say that the records attached support 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 an office visit provided 
on September 15, 2022.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve the LTACH services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the submitted medical records support 
the need for LTACH admission. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the 
Medicare criteria for admission to the 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 the enrollee appears to be currently unstable for transfer and requires additional acute 
care services that can safely be administered at the current facility until more stable and appropriate for 
transfer.  The enrollee does not require services at the LTACH that are not already available at the current facility. 
Transfer to the LTACH is not medically necessary as the enrollee is not yet stable for transfer and as it would 
not be clinically advantageous at this time. 
 
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 the LTACH services.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) device with 
humidifier. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a BiPAP device with humidifier. You say that you need this BiPAP device, 
but you cannot undergo a sleep study.  You said that you suffer from bouts of atrial fibrillation which would 
make the sleep study not possible. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says you do not meet criteria for a 
BiPAP because you have not had the required sleep study. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that that beneficiaries who fail the initial 12-week 
trial for a positive airway pressure (PAP) device are eligible to re-qualify for a PAP device but must have a 
repeat sleep test in a facility-based setting.  
In this case, you failed the 12-week trial of a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) device, and a BiPAP 
device has now been requested.  Although we understand your issues with atrial fibrillation, unfortunately 
Medicare rules require a repeat sleep study in a facility.  There are no exceptions to this Medicare coverage 
rule. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of a BiPAP device with humidifier have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) device with humidifier.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a crown (D2740) and a core build-up (D2950) for tooth #14 
provided on February 14, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for D2740 and D2950. You say that this dental work should be paid. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the rendered dental work is not a covered benefit. 
 
Medicare generally does not cover dental services. However, the Plan offers a dental benefit that exceeds 
Medicare coverage. For that reason, the Plans coverage rules apply in this case. 
 
Though the Plan offers a dental benefit in excess of Medicare coverage, the requested items or services are not 
among those covered under this benefit. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a crown 
(D2740) and a core build-up (D2950) for tooth #14 provided on February 14, 2023.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to reduce the copayment for the debridement procedure provided on 
October 18, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to reduce the copayment for the debridement procedure. You say that you were only told of 
a $30 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 in-network outpatient surgery and other medical services provided at hospital outpatient 
facilities. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $325 copayment for the debridement procedure. This item/service falls within the in-network outpatient surgery and other medical services provided at hospital outpatient facilities 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 the debridement procedure provided on 
October 18, 2022.
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 ready for discharge from the hospital 
and needs to begin recovery at an acute rehabilitation facility. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
enrollee's records do not show that you have complex rehabilitation needs that require frequent evaluation by a 
rehabilitation doctor. 
 
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: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for the ambulance service provided on March 
01, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for the ambulance service. You say that you cannot afford 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 $240 
copayment for ambulance services. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $240 copayment for the ambulance service. This item/service falls within the ambulance 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 the ambulance 
service provided on March 01, 2023.
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 is medically necessary for the 
enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's needs are still acute level of care and are 
being met at the current hospital. 
 
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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for practioner services provided on August 05, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for practioner services. You say that the records attached support 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 practioner services 
provided on August 05, 2022.
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 aggressive therapies in order to 
return to their prior level of function. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the IRF admission and care 
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 provided documentation does not indicate that the enrollee has complex nursing 
or rehabilitation needs. The reviewer found that while the enrollee has a need for therapy, there is no 
documentation of a need for an intensive rehabilitation program. The reviewer also found that 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. Therefore, the reviewer found that the requested IRF 
admission is not medically reasonable or 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 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 long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that admission is medically necessary for the 
enrollee. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says there is no advantage in moving the enrollee from the 
current acute care hospital 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: 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 requested care is necessary to improve the 
enrollee's function and return to their baseline. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested care 
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 provided documentation does not indicate that the enrollee has complex nursing 
or rehabilitation needs. The reviewer found that while the enrollee has a need for therapy, there is no 
documentation of a need for an intensive rehabilitation program. The reviewer also found that 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. Therefore, the reviewer found that the requested IRF 
admission is not medically reasonable or 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 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 pre-approve a home ventilator. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a home ventilator. You say that a home ventilator is medically necessary. 
Other devices have been tried and considered, but the patient is not a candidate for those. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says the patient's needs can be met with a bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) device 
with average volume-assured pressure support (AVAPS). 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that ventilators may be covered when they are medically 
necessary for patients who have neuromuscular disease, thoracic restrictive diseases, and chronic respiratory 
failure due to COPD. 
 
 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 home ventilator. Our reviewer says 
that a home ventilator is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has a diagnosis of 
chronic respiratory failure due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. He was hospitalized in May of 2023 
with respiratory failure and pneumonia, and he was treated with BIPAP. He was admitted to the hospital in 
June of 2023 and again treated with BIPAP. His provider ordered a home ventilator at discharge. The home 
ventilator was ordered in the AVAPS-AE mode of operation. The documentation does not support that this 
device meets but does not exceed the enrollee's need. The documentation does not support that the use a BiPAP 
device would not meet the enrollee's medical needs since it was used in the hospital with successful discharge. 
Further, there is no documentation of pulmonary function testing or that BiPAP or BiPAP with AVAPS has 
been found to be ineffective.  
 
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 home ventilator have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a home ventilator.