Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Armour Thyroid 15-milligram tablets to treat hypothyroidism. The Part D plan denied the request for coverage because the drug was not on the plans formulary and the documentation did not support a formulary exception. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.Armour Thyroid has not been found by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to be safe and effective, and the drug product labeling has not been approved by the FDA. Drugs not approved by the FDA do not meet the definition of a Part D drug and are excluded from Part D coverage. Since the drug is excluded from Part D coverage, a formulary exception is not applicable to this review. This decision does not address the medical necessity or appropriateness of the requested drug. It only establishes that payment cannot be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Hydrocortisone Acetate 25-milligram suppository to treat hemorrhoids. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The plan denied the request for coverage because drugs classified as part of the Food and Drug Administrations (FDAs) Drug Efficacy Study Implementation program cannot be covered by the Medicare Part D drug benefit. These drugs are considered to be less than effective per FDA review. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a request for coverage of Tadalafil 5-milligram tablets prescribed for an unknown condition. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted.The available documentation does not include any medical records from the prescriber nor the enrollees diagnosis. During this review, a request was submitted to the prescriber to provide the diagnosis and supporting medical records. The prescriber did not respond to the request. Without a diagnosis, it cannot be determined if the drug is being prescribed for a medically accepted indication outlined in the Medicare approved compendia. As such, the drug is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D. A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the plan is not required to cover the requested drug.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Humulin N 100-units/milliliter pen injector to treat type II diabetes mellitus with other diabetic kidney complication. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.We requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support all formulary alternatives were tried and failed or were contraindicated. However, we did not receive the requested information.The requested biologic is not on the plans formulary. In order to grant an exception for a biologics not on the plans formulary, alternative formulary biologics must have been tried, failed, or deemed contraindicated. In this case, the documentation does not support why alternative biologics provided on the plans formulary list would likely not be as effective for this diagnosis, and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested biologic is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Verquvo 2.5-milligram tablets. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.As outlined in the Medicare approved compendia, Verquvo is indicated to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalization after a hospitalization for heart failure or need for outpatient intravenous diuretics in adults with symptomatic chronic heart failure and ejection fraction less than 45 percent. While the medical records support the enrollee has chronic congestive heart failure with an ejection fraction of 30 to 35 percent, there is no indication that the enrollee has had a recent hospitalization for heart failure or need for outpatient intravenous diuretics. As such, the requested drug is being prescribed for a non-medically accepted indication and is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a tiering exception request for Trelegy Ellipta 100/62.5/25-microgram per actuation inhalation powder to treat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.Trelegy Ellipta is a brand drug on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. There are no brand drugs of the same type to treat the noted condition on the lower tiers of the plans formulary. Therefore, the drug is not eligible for a tiering exception.A physician reviewer determined that the tiering exception criteria are not met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Butabarbital-Apap-Caffeine capsule 50-300-40-milligram to treat provided diagnosis of headache. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.We requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support a specific diagnosis and all formulary alternatives that were tried and failed or were contraindicated. However, we did not receive the requested information.The use of the requested drug to treat the provided diagnosis is an off-label use. The Medicare approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for the treatment of this diagnosis. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Combigan prescribed for an unknown diagnosis. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. The submitted documentation shows the plan reprocessed a claim for the requested drug and adjusted the amount owed due to the enrollees true out of pocket accumulation. Medicare rules allow a Part D plan to apply deductible, coinsurance, and copayments to covered drugs. We reviewed the plans formulary and Evidence of Coverage. In this case, the enrollee is responsible for their share of any deductible and copay that was not applied at the point of sale. We have determined that the plan is correct in its calculation of additional copay amounts due to reconciliation of the enrollees true out of pocket accumulation.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Lantus prescribed for an unknown diagnosis. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. The submitted documentation shows the plan reprocessed a claim for the requested drug and adjusted the amount owed due to the enrollees true out of pocket accumulation. Medicare rules allow a Part D plan to apply deductible, coinsurance, and copayments to covered drugs. We reviewed the plans formulary and Evidence of Coverage. In this case, the enrollee is responsible for their share of any deductible and copay that was not applied at the point of sale. We have determined that the plan is correct in its calculation of additional copay amounts due to reconciliation of the enrollees true out of pocket accumulation.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Lumigan prescribed for an unknown diagnosis. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. The submitted documentation shows the plan reprocessed a claim for the requested drug and adjusted the amount owed due to the enrollees true out of pocket accumulation. Medicare rules allow a Part D plan to apply deductible, coinsurance, and copayments to covered drugs. We reviewed the plans formulary and Evidence of Coverage. In this case, the enrollee is responsible for their share of any deductible and copay that was not applied at the point of sale. We have determined that the plan is correct in its calculation of additional copay amounts due to reconciliation of the enrollees true out of pocket accumulation.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Novolin R prescribed for an unknown diagnosis. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. The submitted documentation shows the plan reprocessed a claim for the requested drug and adjusted the amount owed due to the enrollees true out of pocket accumulation. Medicare rules allow a Part D plan to apply deductible, coinsurance, and copayments to covered drugs. We reviewed the plans formulary and Evidence of Coverage. In this case, the enrollee is responsible for their share of any deductible and copay that was not applied at the point of sale. We have determined that the plan is correct in its calculation of additional copay amounts due to reconciliation of the enrollees true out of pocket accumulation.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Mycophenolic Acid 180-milligram tablets prescribed daily for kidney transplant. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. We also researched Medicare systems and reviewed the enrollment data available. We determined that the plan is not required to cover the drug. Medicare records indicate the enrollee received a kidney transplant, which was covered by Medicare Part A. Therefore, the transplant is considered a Medicare covered transplant and the requested drug is eligible under Medicare Part B. Medicare rules state that a drug covered under Part B cannot be covered under Part D. This decision does not address the medical necessity or appropriateness of the drug. It only establishes that payment cannot be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Tacrolimus 1-milligram capsules prescribed daily for kidney transplant. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. We also researched Medicare systems and reviewed the enrollment data available. We determined that the plan is not required to cover the drug. Medicare records indicate the enrollee received a kidney transplant, which was covered by Medicare Part A. Therefore, the transplant is considered a Medicare covered transplant and the requested drug is eligible under Medicare Part B. Medicare rules state that a drug covered under Part B cannot be covered under Part D. This decision does not address the medical necessity or appropriateness of the drug. It only establishes that payment cannot be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Otezla 30-milligram tablet to treat other psoriatic arthropathy. The Part D plan denied the request. The requested drug is not on the plans formulary. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.In order to grant an exception for a drug not on the plans formulary, alternative formulary drugs must have been tried, failed, or deemed contraindicated. In this case, the medical records do not support why other drugs on the plans formulary would not work for you.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Rifaximin 550-milligram tablets to treat small bowel bacterial overgrowth. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The use of the requested drug to treat the provided diagnosis is an off-label use. The Medicare approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for the treatment of this diagnosis. Therefore, the requested drug(s) is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Verzenio 150-milligram tablet to treat recurrent glioblastoma. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The Medicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for treatment of the noted condition. There was no peer-reviewed, clinically relevant, medical literature from an approved journal submitted to support this appeal. Therefore, the requested drug is not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare.  As such, an exceptions request based on medical necessity cannot be considered because the requested drug, as prescribed, does not meet the definition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D for the noted condition.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a tiering exception request for Restasis 0.05-percent Emulsion to treat dry eye syndrome of bilateral lacrimal glands. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.Restasis is a brand drug on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. There are no brand drugs of the same type on the lower tiers of the plans formulary to treat the same condition. Therefore, this drug is not eligible for a tiering exception.A physician reviewed the request and determined that the drug is not eligible for a tiering exception.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a tiering exception request for Stelara 90-milligram/milliliter to treat moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.This biologic is being provided by the plan at the cost sharing level of the Specialty tier. Specialty tier biologics are not available for a tiering exception per Medicare rules. A physician reviewer determined that tiering exception criteria are not met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a tiering exception request for Anoro Ellipta 62.5-25-micrograms Blister with Inhalation Device to treat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.Anoro Ellipta is a brand drug on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. There are no brand drugs of the same type on the lower tiers of the plans formulary to treat the same condition. Therefore, this drug is not eligible for a tiering exception.A physician reviewed the request and determined that the drug is not eligible for a tiering exception.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Soliris 300 milligram/30 milliliter vial prescribed for the treatment of myasthenia gravis. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. The submitted documentation shows the requested drug is being administered through an external infusion pump in the home setting. Medicare Part B may pay for supplies necessary for the effective use of durable medical equipment, including drugs and biologicals which must be put directly into the equipment in order to achieve the therapeutic benefit of the durable medical equipment. We determined that the Part D plan is not required to cover the requested drug. The decision does not address medical necessity of the drug. It only indicates that payment cannot be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a tiering exception request for Santyl 250-unit per gram topical ointment to treat a left foot wound and a non-healing ulcer of the right foot. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.Santyl is a biologic drug on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. There are no biologic drugs of the same type to treat the noted conditions on the lower tiers of the plans formulary. As such, this biologic drug is not eligible for a tiering exception.A physician reviewer determined that the tiering exception criteria are not met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a tiering exception request for Rybelsus 7-milligram tablets to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.Rybelsus is a brand drug on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. There are no brand drugs of the same type to treat the noted condition on the lower tiers of the plans formulary. Therefore, this drug is not eligible for a tiering exception.A physician reviewer determined that the tiering exception criteria are not met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Mycophenolate Mofetil 250 milligram capsule prescribed daily for kidney transplant. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. We also researched Medicare systems and reviewed the enrollment data available. We determined that the plan is not required to cover the drug. Medicare records indicate the enrollee received a kidney transplant, which was covered by Medicare Part A. Therefore, the transplant is considered a Medicare covered transplant and the requested drug is eligible under Medicare Part B. Medicare rules state that a drug covered under Part B cannot be covered under Part D. This decision does not address the medical necessity or appropriateness of the drug. It only establishes that payment cannot be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Lidocaine 5-percent ointment. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted including the case file from the plan and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.We requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support the enrollee has satisfied the plans prior authorization coverage criteria and the quantity prescribed was medically necessary for the enrollee. However, we did not receive the requested information.There was no documentation provided by the prescriber to support a covered diagnosis. We requested information from the prescriber but no information was received. We are not able to determine whether the requested drug was prescribed for a medically accepted indication. Therefore, the drug is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D.We cannot consider a quantity limit exception for a drug for which the Medicare Part D plan is unable to provide coverage.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Cyclobenzaprine HCL 10-milligram tablet to treat cervical spondylosis and chronic pain syndrome. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The use of the requested drug to treat the provided diagnosis is an off-label use. The Medicare approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for the treatment of this diagnosis. Therefore, the requested drug(s) is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.