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

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care. 
 You asked the Plan to pre-approve SNF 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 a SNF. 
 
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 pre-approve 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 have daily skilled nursing needs that require the specialized 
skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional nurse. The enrollee does have daily skilled therapy 
needs that require the specialized skill, knowledge, and judgment of a skilled professional therapist. The 
enrollee does not require daily skilled nursing and skilled therapy on an inpatient basis in a skilled nursing 
facility (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 pre-approve skilled nursing facility (SNF) care.
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 records provided support medical 
necessity. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the LTACH services you are requesting do not meet the 
requirements for approval. 
 
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 does not require services at the LTACH that are not available at the acute 
care hospital where they are currently receiving care. There are no services available at the LTACH that the 
enrollee requires that are not available at the health care setting being offered by the health plan. the requested 
LTACH services are not medically necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the diagnosis and condition of 
the enrollee and able to be furnished safely and effectively only on an inpatient basis. 
 
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: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve a custom fabricated abutment (D6057) and an abutment supported 
to crown (D6058) for tooth #19 to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the dental services. You say that you have seen the same dentist for years 
and would like to continue to see them. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that dental services from 
an out-of-network provider are not covered by your supplemental benefits. 
 
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. 
 
You are requesting dental services from an out-of-network provider. The Plan offers a dental benefit in excess 
of Medicare coverage, the only limitation to the dental network is that the enrollee may not see an OON dentist 
if the plan does not have OON coverage, and the EOC clearly shows that the Plan offers OON coverage. Based 
on this information, we decided that the Plans rules for coverage of the dental services have been met. 
Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-approve a custom fabricated abutment (D6057) and an abutment 
supported to crown (D6058) for tooth #19 to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.  
 
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: Drugs
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to pre-approve Keytruda. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the drug. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that Keytruda is not 
medically necessary.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare may pay for unlabeled uses for anti-cancer 
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 the drug. Our reviewer says that 
Keytruda is medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the requested use of Keytruda is FDA-
approved. Keytruda is also safe and effective and otherwise reasonable and necessary 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 the drug have been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan has to pre-approve 
Keytruda.  
 
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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for the podiatry services provided on April 19, 
2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for the podiatry services. You say that you feel the services 
provided were not an office visit. 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 in-network podiatry services. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $25 copayment for the podiatry services. This item/service falls within the in-
network podiatry services benefit category. This means that you have been asked to pay the correct amount based on your contract with the Plan. This cost sharing is a contractual obligation you agreed to pay when you 
enrolled in the Plan. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for the podiatry 
services provided on April 19, 2023.
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 does not need physician supervision 3 times a week or intensive 
therapy 3 hours a day and 5 days per week with a multidisciplinary approach in an IRF. While the enrollee may 
benefit from physical and occupational therapy the enrollee's needs can be provided in an alternate setting such 
as skilled nursing facility. 
 
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: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 52352 rendered on March 20, 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 the records do not support the services billed. 
 
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 52352 is "Cystourethroscopy, with ureteroscopy and/or 
pyeloscopy; with removal or manipulation of calculus (ureteral catheterization is included)."  
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 records do not support CPT 
52352 as a separate and distinct procedure from CPT 52356. CPT code 52356 includes the work of CPT code 
52352, so it would be considered duplicate billing to bill both codes. The work associated with CPT code 
52356 includes cystourethroscopy, ureteroscopy and/or pyeloscopy, lithotripsy, insertion of an indwelling 
ureteral stent. The work associated with CPT code 52352 is the same as the work associated with CPT code 
52356, except for the insertion of the indwelling ureteral stent. 
 
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 52352 rendered on March 20, 2023.
Appeal type: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a backup battery (E1399). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a backup battery. You say that the item should be covered. The Plan denied 
your request. The Plan says backup batteries are items of convenience and not covered.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that for equipment to be covered, it must primarily serve a 
medical purpose.   
 
The item at issue in this appeal does not serve a purpose that is primarily medical in nature. This item is 
available to the general public and would be helpful even to those who are not sick or injured. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a backup battery (E1399).
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. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's care 
can continue to recover at 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 physician reviewer found 
that the enrollee was admitted to the acute care hospital for alcoholic ketoacidosis, rhabdomyolysis, myocardial 
infarction and a fall. The enrollees medical problems are stable. The enrollee does not require treatment by 
multiple therapies, including either physical therapy or occupational therapy, in an intensive rehabilitation 
therapy program. The complexity of the enrollees 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 long term acute care hospital (LTACH) services. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the LTACH services. You say that the enrollee's care needs are medically 
complex, and they require a LTACH level of care for additional recovery to allow them to return home to their 
prior level of function. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee can remain in the current acute 
care facility at this time. 
 
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 record indicates that the enrollee has ongoing acute medical issues and requires 
ongoing acute care services. The enrollee continues to receive acute care services, and these have not been 
denied.  The medical record does not indicate that the enrollee requires services that they are not currently 
receiving but that would be available at the LTACH facility. The elements of the coverage rules are not 
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 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for a water circulating heat pad with pump (E0217) provided on 
December 3, 2022, through December 22, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for a water circulating heat pad with pump. You say that this item was medically 
necessary. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says this is not a covered item. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that The rules state that it has not been established 
that a moist electric heating pad (E0215) or water circulating heat pad with pump (E0217) is reasonable and 
necessary compared to a standard electric heating pad (E0210); therefore, if code E0215 or E0217 is provided 
it will be denied as not reasonable and necessary. 
 
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of a water circulating heat pad with pump have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pay for a water circulating heat pad with pump (E0217) provided on December 3, 2022, through December 22, 2022.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a panniculectomy. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a panniculectomy. You say that extra skin hangs over your knees, and this 
makes it uncomfortable and difficult to walk. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee is not a 
grade two or greater for a panniculectomy.  
 
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 a panniculectomy. Our reviewer says 
that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found the enrollee does not have a pannus or panniculus that hangs below the level of the 
pubis, that is causing chronic intertrigo that consistently recurs or remains refractory to appropriate medical 
therapy over a period of three months. 
 
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 panniculectomy have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does 
not have to pre-approve a panniculectomy.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve mental health services to be provided by an out-of-
network (OON) provider.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve OON services. You say that you have an established relationship with the 
provider. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the necessary services may be obtained in-network.  
 
Medicare rules say that plans can require enrollees to get care from network providers. The contract with the 
Plan says that the Plan has to pre-approve care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving 
emergencies, out of area urgent care and care that cannot be provided by network providers. 
 
 
 The requested provider in this case is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan has network providers 
available who can provide the services at issue in this appeal. We found no exception that would require the 
Plan to pre-approve these OON services. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve 
mental health services to be provided by an out-of-network (OON) provider.
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 for the enrollee 
to receive assistance and close guarding. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's records do 
not show that they have complex rehabilitation needs that require frequent evaluation by a rehab doctor or need 
an intensive multidisciplinary team. 
 
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: Testing
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve myocardial perfusion imaging, tomographic (SPECT) 
(78452). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve myocardial perfusion imaging. 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 follows Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that stress testing is covered when specific criteria are 
met. 
 
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 myocardial perfusion imaging. Our 
reviewer says that the services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found there is insufficient 
documentation to support the medical necessity for the requested cardiac stress testing in this enrollees clinical 
management. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of myocardial perfusion imaging have not been met. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pre-approve myocardial perfusion imaging, tomographic (SPECT) (78452).
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for the office visit provided on April 14, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the office visit. You say that the documentation shows that coding was correct. 
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 April 14, 2023.