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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for vitamin D; 25 hydroxy, includes fraction(s), if performed 
rendered on May 4, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the services. You say that this was medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says CPT 82306 is not a Medicare benefit for the diagnoses list on the claim, and is done for 
screening purposes. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that items and services that are not medically 
necessary are not covered.  
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pay for the services. Our reviewer says that the 
requested services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician reviewer 
found that there was no specific clinical rationale for the requested vitamin D level. Tests with no relation to a 
diagnosis for the health of the patient are not a covered benefit. 
 
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 services have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pay for vitamin D; 25 hydroxy, includes fraction(s), if performed rendered on May 4, 2023.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the DecisionDx-SCC test (0315U) provided on March 13, 
2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the DecisionDx-SCC test. You say that this testing is medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says this testing is not covered. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that molecular diagnostic laboratory tests are subject 
to the MolDX application, assessment, and approval process. 
 We looked at the file and Medicare rules. This test is listed in the DEX database as not covered. Based on this 
information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the DecisionDx-SCC test have not been met. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the DecisionDx-SCC test (0315U) provided on 
March 13, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve epidural steroid injection (ESI). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve ESI. You say that the requested medication is required to treat the enrollee's 
current condition. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the requested service does not meet the 
requirements for approval. 
 
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 ESI. Our reviewer says that the 
requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our physician 
reviewer found according to the coverage criteria, epidural steroid injections must be performed under CT or 
fluoroscopy image guidance with contrast, unless the enrollee has a documented contrast allergy or pregnancy 
where ultrasound guidance without contrast may be considered. In this case, there is no documentation of 
contrast allergy or contraindication to image guidance with contrast. The review has determined that the 
enrollee does not meet the criteria for coverage. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of ESI have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pre-approve epidural steroid injection (ESI).
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for medication assisted treatment, and a take home supply of 
methadone provided on March 13, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for medication assisted treatment, and a take home supply of methadone. You say 
that these 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 medication assisted 
treatment, and a take home supply of methadone provided on March 13, 2023.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Dupixent. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the medication. You say that Dupixent 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 Dupixent.   
Benefits for the medication may be available under Medicare Part D. Contact the Plan that administers Part D 
benefits for further information concerning any benefits and appeal rights.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for each x-ray provided on January 31, 2023, 
to February 28, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for each x-ray. You say that the x-rays were not provided at a 
hospital. 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 $100 
copayment for in-network outpatient x-rays provided at an outpatient hospital. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $100 copayment for each x-ray. This item/service falls within the in-network 
outpatient x-rays provided at an outpatient 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. However, since the allowed amount is less than the standard 
copayment, you only owe $91.20 for each x-ray service. You have been asked to pay a total of $182.40 ($91.20 
copayment + $91.20 copayment = $182.40). Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to waive the 
copayment for each x-ray provided on January 31, 2023, to February 28, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve proton beam radiation therapy. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve proton beam radiation therapy. You say that it is medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says that proton beam radiation therapy does not meet the requirements for 
approval. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that if there are no specific coverage rules for an item 
or service, then that item or service will be covered when it is 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 proton beam radiation therapy. Our 
reviewer says that the requested items/services are considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. 
Our physician reviewer found the use of proton therapy is an accepted radiation technology that has proven 
efficacy and tolerability. It is therefore NOT investigational, as it is simply another means to deliver radiation.  
Certain conditions- such as base of skull chordomas and chondrosarcomas, and pediatric CNS malignancies are 
probably best treated with proton therapy, due to the sharp dose fall off, allowing high dose delivery to the 
tumor, while relatively sparing the neighboring normal tissue. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of proton beam radiation therapy have been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan has to pre-approve proton beam radiation therapy.  
 
If the Plan does not agree with our decision, they can ask us to open a case again. We only open a case again 
if we believe there was a mistake or if there is new information to review. The Plan has to show us the mistake 
and/or send us the new information. This does not happen often. If we decide to open the case again, we will 
send you a letter.
Appeal type: 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 intensive inpatient rehabilitation 
with daily physician management, continuous specialized rehabilitation nursing, and intensive therapies to 
optimize mobility and strengthening while ensuring the restoration of functional status for a safe and 
sustainable discharge. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the Medicare 
guidelines for services in an IRF.  
 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. There are no 
complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. The enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies, 
including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. 
While the medical record supports a need for physical therapy and/or occupational therapy, there is no 
documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different 
level of care. There is not a reasonable expectation that the enrollee will be able to fully participate in and 
benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: 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 would like reconsideration based on the records 
submitted. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's medical and therapy needs could be met 
in a skilled nursing unit.  
 
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. There are no 
complex nursing or rehabilitation needs. The enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies, 
including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive rehabilitation therapy program. 
While the medical record supports a need for physical therapy and/or occupational therapy, there is no 
documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different 
level of care. There is not a reasonable expectation that the enrollee will be able to fully participate in and 
benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 20611 rendered on March 27, 2023. 
 
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 20611-59, RT (1 Unit) 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 20611 is "Arthrocentesis, aspiration and/or injection, 
major joint or bursa (eg, shoulder, hip, knee, subacromial bursa); with ultrasound guidance, with permanent 
recording and reporting." 
 
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 provided records in this case do not document permanent recording and reporting as required for CPT 20611. 
 
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 procedure code 20611 rendered on March 27, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the coinsurance for an injection provided on May 01, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the coinsurance for an injection. You say that you would not have agreed to the 
procedure if you had been aware of the cost share. 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 20% 
coinsurance for Medicare Part B prescription drugs. 
 
You have been asked to pay 20% coinsurance for an injection. This item/service falls within the Medicare Part 
B prescription drugs 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. The total you owe is $143.87, which is 20% of the allowed amount for a Medicare Part B drug 
injection ($719.33 allowed x 20% = $143.87). Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to waive the 
coinsurance for an injection provided on May 01, 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 appealing this denial. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says you do not meet Medicare guidelines for services in an IRF.  
 
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 you nursing, medical, and rehabilitation needs does not require an 
acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. 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 therapy and/or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive 
rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different level of care. There is not a 
reasonable expectation that 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: 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 IRF services to regain their 
prior level of functioning and independence. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the request 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 that the enrollees medical problems are stable and there are no complex nursing or 
rehabilitation needs. While the medical record supports a need for physical or occupational therapy, there is no 
documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different 
level of care.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for drug testing provided on May 12, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for drug testing. You say that you are an independent laboratory. 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 drug testing provided on 
May 12, 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 requested services are medically necessary for 
the enrollee's condition. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not meet the criteria for 
admission to an IRF.  
 
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 enrollee does not require treatment by multiple therapies. While the medical 
record supports a need for physical or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive 
rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be provided in a different level of care.  
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a telehealth visit provided on March 28, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for a telehealth visit. You say that there should not be a need for prior authorization 
for this type of visit. 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 telehealth visit 
provided on March 28, 2023.