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 December 23, 2022, by an OON 
provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the office visit. You say that you are requesting reconsideration of the denied 
claim. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 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 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 December 23, 2022, 
by an OON provider.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the office visit provided on March 21, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the office visit. You say that you are appealing the denial with supporting 
documentation. 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 provided 
on March 21, 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 enrollee requires and would benefit from 
Intensive Inpatient rehab hospitalization with daily physician visits and examinations, 24-hour rehab nursing 
care, Intensive therapies to optimize mobility and regain the ability to perform activities of daily living. 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: ER
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an emergency department visit provided on  
February 27, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the emergency department visit. You say that the services were medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this provider is not enrolled to be eligible to bill 
Medicare.  
 The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that Medicare covers services in an emergency 
department only if the emergency clinic is affiliated with a hospital.  
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. The file shows that this provider is not affiliated with a hospital and 
is not CMS approved. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for coverage of the 
emergency department visit have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an 
emergency department visit provided on February 27, 2023.
Appeal type: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for ambulance provided on April 14, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for ambulance. You say that you say that you shouldnt be held 
responsible for the ambulance copay because you refused to go to the 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 $190 
copayment for ambulance services. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $190 copayment for ambulance. 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 ambulance provided on 
April 14, 2023.
Appeal type: Transportation
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for ambulance provided on December 20, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for ambulance. You say that you believe the services are medically necessary. 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 ambulance provided on 
December 20, 2022.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for lab testing provided on August 15, 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 
August 15, 2022.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the coinsurance for the drug injection provided on April 25, 
2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the coinsurance for the drug injection. You say that the provider charged too much 
for this service. 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 in-network Medicare Part B drugs. 
 
You have been asked to pay 20% coinsurance for the drug injection. This item/service falls within the in-
network Medicare Part B 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. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to waive the coinsurance for 
the drug injection provided on April 25, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for anesthesia for procedures on the upper abdomen provided on 
April 8, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for anesthesia for procedures on the upper abdomen. You say that you had no other 
insurance and should not be charged for these services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
primary payer will need to review the services for payment consideration before the Plan can consider the 
claim for payment consideration as secondary payer. The Plan contacted the provider and successfully relayed 
the information.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules state that Medicare plans are considered secondary insurers 
when an enrollee has another type of insurance. This means that the Plan is not responsible for paying for 
services until the claim for those services has gone to the primary insurer. However, plans are still required to coordinate their benefits with the primary insurers. Plans can coordinate their benefits with the primary insurers 
in three ways. First, the Plan can send the bill directly to the primary insurer for payment. Second, the Plan can 
direct the provider to send the bill to the primary insurer. Third, the Plan can pay for the services and submit a 
bill for reimbursement to the primary insurer. 
 
The Plan has met its obligation with regards to coordination of benefits. Specifically, the Plan has contacted the 
provider and successfully relayed the information.  As the secondary insurer, the Plan cannot be held 
responsible for anesthesia for procedures on the upper abdomen until the primary insurer has denied the claim 
for these services. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for anesthesia for procedures on the 
upper abdomen provided on April 8, 2022.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the x-ray of the knee provided on January 16, 2023, by an 
OON provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the x-ray of the knee. You say that the service was medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says the 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 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 x-ray of the knee provided on January 16, 
2023, by an OON provider.
Appeal type: Inpatient Hospital
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for inpatient hospital services rendered from October 25, 2021, 
to November 10, 2021. 
 
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 the reviewer has the authority to request that documentation be submitted to support claims 
payment. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that the provider, supplier, or beneficiary, as 
appropriate, must furnish to the intermediary or carrier sufficient information to determine whether payment is due and the amount of payment. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that there is insufficient 
information in the record to determine if Medicare rules for coverage of the services have been met. There is a 
discrepancy between the charges on the itemized bill and the charges on the UB-04. Despite multiple attempts 
from the plan, a corrected claim explaining the discrepancies has not been received at this time. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for inpatient hospital services rendered from October 25, 2021, to 
November 10, 2021.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for laboratory services provided on February 08, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for laboratory services. 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 laboratory services 
provided on February 08, 2023.
Appeal type: Imaging
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for mammography provided on January 24, 
2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for mammography. You say that you say that you find it unethical 
to be rebilled at this late date. 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 outpatient diagnostic tests and therapeutic services and supplies. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $30 copayment for mammography. 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 mammography provided on January 24, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a rest home visit provided on November 30, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for a rest home visit. You say that the enrollee does not have control on which 
provider they see. 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 rest home visit 
provided on November 30, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for anesthesia for procedures on the upper abdomen provided on  
April 8, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for anesthesia for procedures on the upper abdomen. You say that you had no other 
insurance and should not be charged for these services. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the 
primary payer will need to review the services for payment consideration before the Plan can consider the 
claim for payment consideration as secondary payer. The Plan contacted the provider and successfully relayed 
the information. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules state that Medicare plans are considered secondary insurers 
when an enrollee has another type of insurance. This means that the Plan is not responsible for paying for 
services until the claim for those services has gone to the primary insurer. However, plans are still required to coordinate their benefits with the primary insurers. Plans can coordinate their benefits with the primary insurers 
in three ways. First, the Plan can send the bill directly to the primary insurer for payment. Second, the Plan can 
direct the provider to send the bill to the primary insurer. Third, the Plan can pay for the services and submit a 
bill for reimbursement to the primary insurer. 
 
The Plan has met its obligation with regards to coordination of benefits. Specifically, the Plan has contacted the 
provider and successfully relayed the information. As the secondary insurer, the Plan cannot be held 
responsible for anesthesia for procedures on the upper abdomen until the primary insurer has denied the claim 
for these services. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for anesthesia for procedures on the 
upper abdomen provided on April 8, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for a specialist office visit provided on June 
01, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive 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 $35 
copayment for physician/practitioner services/specialist. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $35 copayment for a specialist office visit. This item/service falls within the 
physician/practitioner services/specialist 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 a specialist office visit provided on June 01, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for an office visit provided on March 23, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for an office visit. You say that this service is supported in the records. 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 March 23, 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 need the rehab to return to being independent. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the IRF services you are requesting do not meet the requirements 
for approval. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that IRF admission is covered only when it is medically 
reasonable and necessary as described in the Medicare rules section. 
 We asked our physician reviewer to carefully review the case file and apply the relevant Medicare rules to 
determine if the Plan was correct in denying the request to pre-approve IRF care. Our reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found the complexity of your nursing, medical and rehabilitation needs does not require an 
acute hospital inpatient stay with an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation care. You do not require 
treatment by multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, and an intensive 
rehabilitation therapy program. While the medical record supports a need for physical and/or occupational 
therapy, there is no documented need for intensive rehabilitation services. Medically necessary care can be 
provided in a different level of care. There is not a reasonable expectation that you will be able to fully 
participate in and benefit from the intensive rehabilitation therapy program provided in an IRF. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of IRF care have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have 
to pre-approve acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) admission and services.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for an in-network specialist visit provided on 
April 25, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for an in-network specialist visit. You say that this is your primary 
care provider, you do not understand why you are paying the larger 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 $25 
copayment for physician/practitioner services, including doctors office visits. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $25 copayment for an in-network specialist 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. This provider was not listed as your primary care 
provider (PCP) at the time of this visit. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to waive the 
copayment for an in-network specialist visit provided on April 25, 2023.