Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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 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. 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 Retacrit. Our reviewer says that the 
services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the Food and Drug Administration has 
stated that the requested drug is indicated for the enrollee's condition. The medical records provided are 
insufficient to establish the medical necessity, as defined by Medicare rules, of the requested service at this 
time. The elements of the coverage criteria are not satisfied. The requested service cannot be recommended. 
 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: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a permanent spinal cord stimulator (SCS) implant 
(63685, 63650). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a permanent SCS implant. 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 no payment may be made for the implantation of 
dorsal column or depth brain stimulators or services and supplies related to such implantation, unless 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 a permanent SCS implant. Our reviewer 
says that the services are not medically necessary. Our physician reviewer found the NCD and Local Coverage 
Determination (LCD) require psychological evaluation as well as consultation with a spine surgeon. At this 
time, lacking this documentation, the request is deemed not medically reasonable and necessary. 
 
We looked at this physician's review, the file, and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that 
Medicare rules for coverage of a permanent SCS implant have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the 
Plan does not have to pre-approve a permanent spinal cord stimulator (SCS) implant (63685, 63650).
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for tangential biopsy of skin provided on May 17, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for tangential biopsy of skin. 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 tangential biopsy of skin 
provided on May 17, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for home evaluation visit provided on February 15, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for home evaluation visit. You say that the records attached support the services 
provided. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that unauthorized, out-of-network care is not covered. 
 
Medicare rules say that plans can require enrollees to get care from network providers. The contract with the 
Plan says that the Plan has to pay for care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving emergencies, 
out of area urgent care and pre-approved care. 
 
The provider of the item(s)/service(s) at issue in this appeal is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan did not pre-approve the item(s)/service(s) at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay 
for the item(s)/service(s). Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for home evaluation visit 
provided on February 15, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 99417 billed for date of service January 19, 
2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 99417. You say that you would like the Plan to reconsider their 
denial of payment. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the billed code is invalid for Medicare 
purposes.  
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that providers must report services correctly. 
Providers must report services with the appropriate procedure code.  
We find that procedure code 99417 has a Status Indicator of I on the Physician Fee Schedule. This means that 
procedure code 99417 is not valid for Medicare purposes. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare 
rules for coverage of procedure code 99417 have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not 
have to pay for procedure code 99417 billed for date of service January 19, 2023.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for psychotherapy visit provided on January 17, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for psychotherapy visit. You say that the records attached support the services 
provided. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that unauthorized, out-of-network care is not covered. 
 
Medicare rules say that plans can require enrollees to get care from network providers. The contract with the 
Plan says that the Plan has to pay for care from out-of-network providers only in cases involving emergencies, 
out of area urgent care and pre-approved care. 
 
The provider of the item(s)/service(s) at issue in this appeal is not a network provider with the Plan. The Plan did not pre-approve the item(s)/service(s) at issue. We found no exception that would require the Plan to pay 
for the item(s)/service(s). Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pay for psychotherapy visit 
provided on January 17, 2023.
Appeal type: Drugs
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve Gemtesa. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve these services. You say that you disagree with the denial. 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 Gemtesa.   
Benefits for these services 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: DME/ Orthotics
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve foot orthotics.  
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve foot orthotics. You say that the item is necessary. The Plan denied your 
request. The Plan says this item is not a covered benefit. 
 
Medicare rules state that supportive devices for the feet (such as orthotics) are only covered for patients with 
diabetic foot disease or for patients who wear a leg brace. The Plan follows these same rules.   
 
Records show that you do not suffer from diabetic foot disease, and you do not wear a leg brace. Although 
orthotics may be appropriate for you, neither Medicare nor the Plan provides coverage of orthotics for your 
condition. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve foot orthotics.
Appeal type: Transportation
Decision: Favorable

 
We decided that the Plan has to waive the copayment for the ambulance services provided on July 29, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for the ambulance services. You say that it was not your fault you 
had to be transferred to another location. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the cost sharing was 
applied correctly. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that Medicare health plans must make reasonable and 
diligent efforts to gather and forward to the IRE information regarding its decision to deny coverage or 
payment. 
 
The Plan has not made reasonable and diligent efforts to gather and forward to us information regarding their 
decision to deny your request. The Plan did not provide the 2022 Evidence of Coverage (EOC). Without the 
correct EOC we are unable to determine if the cost sharing was applied correctly. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan has to waive the copayment for the ambulance services provided on July 29, 2022.  
 
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: Supplemental Benefit
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a custom fabricated abutment (D6057), and an abutment 
supported crown (D6058) for tooth #4. 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve the dental services. You say that you need this dental work. 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 with the approval of D6057/D6058 for teeth 
#19 and #30. Therefore, we decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a custom fabricated abutment 
(D6057), and an abutment supported crown (D6058) for tooth #4.
Appeal type: Surgery
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pre-approve a CardioMEMs device (33289). 
 
You asked the Plan to pre-approve a CardioMEMs device. You say that the services are necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says medical necessity has not been established. Therefore, coverage criteria 
have not been met. 
 
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 CardioMEMs device. Our reviewer 
says that the requested items/services are not considered medically reasonable and necessary in this case. Our 
physician reviewer found there remains a dearth of randomized, blinded clinical studies examining long-term 
clinical outcomes establishing the value of CardioMEMS in patient management. As a result, at this time the 
CardioMEMS system would not be considered medically appropriate and necessary 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 a CardioMEMs device have not been met. Therefore, we decided that the Plan 
does not have to pre-approve a CardioMEMs device (33289).
Appeal type: ER
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for the emergency room services provided on 
January 15, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for the emergency room services. You say that you were instructed 
to go to the emergency room. 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 $125 
copayment for outpatient hospital services. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $125 copayment for the emergency room services. This item/service falls within 
the outpatient hospital 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 emergency room services provided on January 15, 2023.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for lab services provided on October 24, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for the lab services. You say that this service was medically necessary. The Plan 
denied your request. The Plan says you billed with an incorrect place of service on the claim. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. Medicare rules say that, for lab services, the POS code must reflect the 
location in which the sample was taken. POS code 81 is used to describe samples taken by the laboratory 
directly.  
We looked at the file and Medicare rules. Based on this information, we decided that Medicare rules for 
coverage of the lab services have not been met. Specifically, this claim was billed with the laboratory POS 
code. The records do not support that the sample was taken in a laboratory setting. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pay for lab services provided on October 24, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to waive the copayment for the urgent care visit provided on August 
28, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to waive the copayment for the urgent care visit. You say that you were not aware that you 
had a 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 $55 
copayment for urgently needed services. 
 
You have been asked to pay a $55 copayment for the urgent care visit. This item/service falls within the 
urgently needed 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 urgent 
care visit provided on August 28, 2022.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 81345 billed for date of service January 24, 
2023. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 81345. You say that this service was medically necessary. The 
Plan denied your request. The Plan says payment for code 81345 is bundled into payment for code 0089U. 
 
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, we have confirmed that code 81345 
is a column II code to column I code 0089U. This claim has not been billed with an appropriate modifier to 
bypass the edit. Based on the claim submitted, Medicare billing criteria have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 81345 billed for date of service January 24, 
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 aggressive care that can be 
provided at an IRF. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says the enrollee's needs can be met 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 reviewer says that the 
requested IRF care is not considered medically reasonable and necessary based on Medicare guidelines. Our 
physician reviewer found that 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 or occupational therapy, there is no documented need for intensive rehabilitation 
services. 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. 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: SNF
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for nursing facility care provided on September 08, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for nursing facility care. You say that the services rendered were 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 nursing facility care 
provided on September 08, 2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for office visit provided on February 04, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for office visit. You say that you are requesting the submitted documentation be 
reviewed. 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 office visit provided on 
February 04, 2023.
Appeal type: Lab
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 87634 billed for date of service November 
17, 2022. 
 You asked the Plan to pay for procedure code 87634. You say that these services were medically necessary. 
The Plan denied your request. The Plan says payment for code 87634 is bundled into payment for code 87798. 
 
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, we have confirmed that code 87634 
is a column II code to column I code 87798. This claim has not been billed with an appropriate modifier to 
bypass the edit. Based on the claim submitted, Medicare billing criteria have not been met. Therefore, we 
decided that the Plan does not have to pay for procedure code 87634 billed for date of service November 17, 
2022.
Appeal type: Practitioner Services
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for chiropractic services provided from June 27, 2022, to 
October 3, 2022. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for chiropractic services. You say that you believe the spinal manipulation should be 
covered. The Plan denied your request. The Plan says that the claim processed correctly, per your plan's policy. 
 
The Plan must follow Medicare rules. The rules say that the only chiropractic service Medicare covers is 
manual manipulation of the spine to correct a subluxation.  
 
The records show that the service at issue is not manual manipulation of the spine. Therefore, we decided that 
the Plan does not have to pay for chiropractic services provided from June 27, 2022, to October 3, 2022.
Appeal type: Outpatient Therapies
Decision: Unfavorable

 
We decided that the Plan does not have to pay for outpatient therapies provided on February 06, 2023. 
 
You asked the Plan to pay for outpatient therapies. 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 outpatient therapies 
provided on February 06, 2023.