Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a maxillary partial denture - cast metal framework with resin 
denture bases (D5213) provided on April 13, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the maxillary partial denture. You say that you were not aware of the 5 year 
replacement renewal period. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says your benefit for the requested service 
has already been exhausted. 
 
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, certain limitations apply. The record 
shows your benefit for the requested item or service was exhausted on date of service January 31, 2020. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a maxillary partial denture - cast metal framework 
with resin denture bases (D5213) provided on April 13, 2022.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute IRF admission and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says an IRF admission 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 enrollee is over 6 months post stroke and has chronic functional loss and 
pain. However, the enrollee does not require intensive or complex rehabilitation to address their chronic 
minimal assist level. 
 
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 IRF admission and services.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a PET scan.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the PET scan. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says a PET scan is 
not medically necessary.  
 
The Plan follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules state that a PET scan for dementia and neurodegenerative 
diseases are only covered under certain conditions. 
 
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 PET scan. Our reviewer says that 
the PET scan is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found that the enrollee does not meet 
diagnostic criteria for either AD or FTD. Therefore, the requirements for the requested service or procedure 
would not be considered to have been met or satisfied. 
 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 PET scan have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pre-approve a PET scan.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Retacrit. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Retacrit. You say that Retacrit is medically necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says coverage criteria has not been met. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for a drug or biological only if it is safe 
and effective and otherwise reasonable and 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 Retacrit. Our reviewer says that 
Retacrit is not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the record indicates that the enrollee has a 
diagnosis of  anemia in the setting of myelosuppressive chemotherapy with curative intent to treat multiple 
myeloma. The Food and Drug Administration has not stated that the requested drug is indicated for the 
enrollee's condition. The Medicare approved  drug compendia do not contain a supportive citation for the use 
of the requested drug in the enrollee's clinical situation. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Retacrit have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve Retacrit.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission 
and services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve IRF care. You say that admission is medically necessary for the enrollee. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not have complex medical and intensive 
rehabilitation needs requiring supervision by a rehabilitation physician and an intensive and coordinated 
interdisciplinary team in a resource intensive inpatient hospital environment. Services needed may be provided 
safely in a lower level of care. 
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: 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 expected to make measurable 
functional improvements and return to being independent. 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 is medically stable. At the current functional level, the enrollee will not 
make a significant progress in an IRF in 7-10 days as predicted. Document does not support necessity for 
admission to an IRF. The complexity of the enrollee's medical, rehab, and nursing needs does not require an 
acute hospital inpatient rehab stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitative 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: 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 services are medically necessary. 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 lower 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: Drugs
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve Hyaluronan or derivative, Orthovisc (J7324 x4). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve Hyaluronan or derivative, Orthovisc. The Plan denied your request. The 
Plan says that this request does not meet the criteria for Orthovisc for the knee, and is not covered by Medicare 
or the Plan. 
 
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 Hyaluronan or derivative, Orthovisc. 
Our reviewer says that this request is medically reasonable and necessary for the enrollee. Our physician 
reviewer found synthetic hyaluronic preparations used as a viscosupplement are FDA-approved for the 
treatment of pain in osteoarthritis of the knee in patients who have failed to respond adequately to conservative 
non-pharmacologic therapy and simple analgesics such as acetaminophen or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory 
drugs (NSAIDS). Our reviewer also found that the requested use of Hyaluronan or derivative, Orthovisc (J7324 
x4) is FDA-approved for the enrollees diagnosis. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of Hyaluronan or derivative, Orthovisc have been met. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan has to pre-approve Hyaluronan or derivative, Orthovisc (J7324 x4).  
 
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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) and supplies 
(E2103, A4239). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a CGM and supplies. 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. Medicare rules say that therapeutic CGMs are considered medically 
reasonable and necessary when prescribed in accordance with their FDA indications for enrollees with diabetes 
who are insulin treated or who have a history of problematic hypoglycemia, and have had an in-person visit 
with their treating physician to evaluate their diabetes control and determine whether the criteria for coverage 
have been met. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The documentation indicates that you do not use insulin or have a 
history of problematic hypoglycemia. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage 
of a CGM and supplies have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a 
continuous glucose monitor (CGM) and supplies (E2103, A4239).
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 needs inpatient rehabilitation to regain 
maximum function. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee does not have complex nursing or 
medical needs requiring a resource intensive inpatient hospital setting. Services needed may be provided safely 
in a lower level of care. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section.  
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of the enrollee's nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not 
require an acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Step-Therapy
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Evenity (J3111). 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve Evenity. You say that the enrollee would benefit from Evenity for bone 
building followed by Prolia for maintenance therapy. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says Evenity is 
on Medicare Part B's list of excluded step drugs and therefore the patient must first try and fail or have serious 
side effects to Tymlos or Forteo. 
 
Medicare covers Part B medications when they are reasonable and necessary but allows health plans to 
implement step therapy criteria. The Plan's contract indicates that it has implemented such criteria for certain 
Part B medications. 
 
We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve Evenity. Our reviewer says that the 
enrollee does not meet the coverage criteria for Evenity. Our physician reviewer found the enrollee has not 
tried and failed the required drugs. Our reviewer also found that there is no documentation provided indicating 
that the Plan's required drugs would likely be less effective and/or likely have adverse effects for the 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 Evenity have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to 
pre-approve Evenity (J3111).
Appeal type: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the ambulance response and treatment with no transport 
provided on March 16, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the ambulance response and treatment with no transport. You say that you did 
not request the ambulance. You also say that the security guard called one and you were feeling fine and did 
not need one. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says these services are not a covered benefit.  
 
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 March 16, 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 with no 
transport provided on March 16, 2023.
Appeal type: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve custom fabricated abutment - includes placement 
(D6057) and abutment supported porcelain/ceramic crown (D6058). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the dental services. You say that this should be covered. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says your benefit for the requested item or service has already been exhausted. 
 
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, certain limitations apply. The record 
shows your benefit for the requested item or service was exhausted. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve custom fabricated abutment - includes placement (D6057) and abutment supported 
porcelain/ceramic crown (D6058).
Appeal type: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for skilled nursing facility (SNF) care provided from January 26, 
2023, to May 5, 2023. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for SNF care. You say that the records provided support medical necessity. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the SNF services you are requesting do not meet the requirements for 
approval. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare pays for care in a SNF when the four factors 
listed in the Medicare rules section are met. Custodial care is 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 SNF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested SNF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee does not require skilled nursing or skilled therapy services that require 
the specialized skill, knowledge, and judgement of a skilled professional nurse or therapist. The enrollee does 
not require skilled services on a daily basis. The enrollee does not require skilled services on an inpatient basis 
in a SNF setting. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of SNF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pay for skilled nursing facility (SNF) care provided from January 26, 2023, to May 5, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the cost share for an office visit provided on March 28, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the cost share for an office visit. You say that you disagree with 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. Your 
contract with the Plan says that there is a $500 deductible which applies to physician/practitioner services.  
 
The item or service you asked the Plan to waive the cost share for falls within the physician/practitioner 
services benefit category. You are being asked to pay $121.88 towards your $500 deductible. The Plan has 
followed Medicare rules by clearly disclosing in the contract that there is a $500 deductible which applies to 
physician/practitioner services. This cost sharing is a contractual obligation that had not been met at the time an 
office visit was received on March 28, 2023. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to waive the 
cost share for an office visit provided on March 28, 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 does not meet all the requirements; care can 
be provided in the current inpatient 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 psychotherapy provided from February 27, 2023, to  
April 4, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the psychotherapy. You say that your insurance covers in-network and out-of-
network and you have been seeing this therapist for over 10 years and need these services covered. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the service obtained was rendered by a provider who is not under contract 
with the health Plan and is an ineligible provider. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that a Mental Health Counselor is not eligible to 
participate in the Medicare program. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The provider at issue in this case is a Mental Health Counselor. 
Medicare says that a Mental Health Counselor is not eligible to participate in the Medicare program. Therefore, 
we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for psychotherapy provided from February 27, 2023, to 
April 4, 2023.