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

At issue is coverage for Epclusa 400/100 milligram tablet to treat chronic hepatitis C, genotype 1a or 1b, without cirrhosis in an enrollee who has received a kidney transplant. The Part D plan denied the request for coverage. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all available documentation.The plan has prior authorization requirements for this drug that must be met before coverage will be provided. The documentation submitted at reconsideration supports that all of the plans requirements for coverage have been satisfied. Specifically, the prescriber has submitted documentation supporting the following: the enrollee has genotype 1a or 1b; is treatment naive; does not have cirrhosis; is not a candidate for Ribavirin; and will not be taking any other direct acting antivirals drugs for the treatment of hepatitis C virus. Therefore, the plans prior authorization requirements have been met and coverage for the drug is supported.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Insulin Glargine Solostar U-100 injection pen to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus. The Part D plan denied the request for coverage.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all available documentation.The requested drug is not on the plans formulary. To grant an exception for a drug that is not on the plans formulary, alternative formulary drugs must have been tried and failed or must be deemed contraindicated. In this case, the prescriber has not provided patient-specific clinical rationale as to why the alternative drugs on the plans formulary to treat the enrollees condition would likely not be as effective as the requested drug and/or would likely cause adverse reactions or other harm. Additionally, the submitted documentation does not support that the enrollee has tried and failed all of the formulary alternative drugs. Therefore, the formulary exception requirements have not been met.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 coverage for Skyrizi 150 milligram per milliliter syringe to treat pyoderma gangrenosum. The Part D plan denied the request for coverage.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all available documentation.In order for a drug to be covered by Medicare Part D, it must be prescribed for a medically accepted indication outlined in the Medicare approved compendia. The use of the requested drug to treat the noted condition 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 condition. Therefore, the drug is being prescribed for a non-medically accepted indication.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 coverage for Simponi 100 milligrams per milliliter syringe to treat hidradenitis suppurativa. The Part D plan denied the request for coverage.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all available documentation.In order for a drug to be covered by Medicare Part D, it must be prescribed for a medically accepted indication outlined in the Medicare approved compendia. The use of the requested drug to treat the noted condition 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 condition. Therefore, the drug is being prescribed for a non-medically accepted indication.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

At issue is coverage for Repatha Sureclick 140 milligram per milliliter subcutaneous solution auto-injector to treat hyperlipidemia with coronary artery disease. The Part D plan denied the request for coverage.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all available documentation.The plan has prior authorization requirements for this drug that must be met before coverage will be provided. The submitted documentation supports that all of the plans requirements for coverage have been satisfied. Specifically, the prescriber clarified the medical history. The enrollee has atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease as confirmed by a history of myocardial infarction in 2016. The enrollee has been on the requested medication since April 2021 and has a documented inability to take statins. The enrollee has experienced low-density lipoprotein (LDL) reduction while on Repatha treatment. The documentation shows that prior to receiving Repatha, the enrollee's LDL was 162 on April 6, 2021, and after being on Repatha for two years, the enrollee's LDL was 54 on February 7, 2023. Supporting medical records and laboratory reports have been provided with the request for reconsideration. Therefore, the plans prior authorization requirements have been met and coverage for the drug is supported.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Promacta 50 milligram tablet to treat chronic idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura. The Part D plan denied the request for coverage.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all available documentation.The plan has prior authorization requirements for this drug that must be met before coverage will be provided. The submitted documentation does not support that all of the plans requirements for coverage have been satisfied. Furthermore, the documentation does not support the medical necessity for an exception to the plans prior authorization requirements.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 coverage for Repatha Sureclick 140 milligram per milliliter solution auto injector to treat unknown condition. The Part D plan denied the request for coverage. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all available documentation.During this review, we requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support a diagnosis and that all formulary alternatives were tried and failed or were deemed contraindicated, However, the prescriber did not respond to our request.In order for a drug to be covered by Medicare Part D, it must be prescribed for a medically accepted indication outlined in the Medicare approved compendia. The submitted documentation does not include medical records or evidence of a prescribed diagnosis. The documentation submitted at reconsideration also does not include medical records or evidence of a prescribed diagnosis. As such, there is insufficient documentation available to establish that the requested drug has been prescribed for a medically accepted indication. Of note, a formulary exception cannot be addressed for a drug that has not been approved for 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 coverage for Xifaxan 550 milligram tablet to treat irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea. The Part D plan denied the request for coverage.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all available documentation.The plan has prior authorization requirements for this drug that must be met before coverage will be provided. The available documentation does not confirm that all of the plans coverage requirements have been met. During this review, a request was submitted to the prescriber to address the plans coverage requirements for the requested drug and to provide supporting medical records. The prescriber did not respond to the request. As such, there is insufficient documentation to support that the plans prior authorization criteria have been satisfied. A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

At issue is coverage for Privigen 10 percent vial to treat common variable immunodeficiency, unspecified. The Part D plan denied the request for coverage. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all available documentation.The diagnosis of common variable immunodeficiency, unspecified is a primary immune deficiency disorder. The administration of intravenous and/or subcutaneous immune globulin therapy for the treatment of a primary immune deficiency disorder not given in the home would be covered under Medicare Part D. The documentation shows the drug is being given in an infusion center. The drug is on the plans formulary and the Part B versus Part D prior authorization criteria is met. Therefore, the requested drug is eligible for Medicare Part D coverage.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Gammaplex 10 percent vial to treat common variable immunodeficiency, unspecified. The Part D plan denied the request for coverage. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all available documentation.During this review, we requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support that all formulary alternatives were tried and failed or were deemed contraindicated. However, the prescriber did not respond to our request.The administration of intravenous and/or subcutaneous immune globulin therapy for the treatment of a primary immune deficiency disorder not given in the home would be covered under Medicare Part D. The documentation shows the drug is being given in an infusion center. Therefore, the drug is considered a Part D drug. However, the requested drug is not on the plans formulary. To grant an exception for a drug that is not on the plans formulary, alternative formulary drugs must have been tried and failed or must be deemed contraindicated. In this case, the prescriber has not provided patient-specific clinical rationale as to why the alternative drugs on the plans formulary to treat the enrollees condition would likely not be as effective as the requested drug and/or would likely cause adverse reactions or other harm. Additionally, the submitted documentation does not indicate that the enrollee has tried and failed all of the formulary alternative drugs. Therefore, the formulary exception requirements have not been met.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 coverage for Otezla 30 milligram tablet. The Part D plan auto-forwarded the case to us for review.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all available documentation.During this review, we requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support a covered diagnosis and that the enrollee has satisfied the plans prior authorization coverage criteria. However, the prescriber did not respond to our request.In order for a drug to be covered by Medicare Part D, it must be prescribed for a medically accepted indication outlined in the Medicare approved compendia. The submitted documentation does not include medical records or evidence of a prescribed diagnosis. As such, there is insufficient documentation available to establish that the requested drug has been prescribed for a medically accepted indication.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 Raloxifene Hydrochloride 60 milligram tablet to treat osteoporosis. The Part D plan auto-forwarded the case to us for review. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all available documentation.During this review, we requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support that all lower-tiered drugs to treat the enrollees condition were tried and failed or were deemed. However, the prescriber did not respond to our request.Raloxifene Hydrochloride 60 milligram tablet is a generic drug on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. The prescriber has not provided patient-specific clinical rationale as to why all of the lower-tiered alternative drugs on the plans formulary to treat the enrollees condition are contraindicated. Therefore, the tiering exception requirements have not been met. A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for a tiering exception.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Ganciclovir Sodium 500 milligram per 10 milliliter intravenous solution to treat human herpes virus 6 (HHV6) viremia. The Part D plan denied the request for coverage.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all available documentation. In order for a drug to be covered by Medicare Part D, it must be prescribed for a medically accepted indication outlined in the Medicare approved compendia. The use of the requested drug to treat the noted condition 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 condition. Therefore, the drug is being prescribed for a non-medically accepted indication.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

At issue is Citalopram 20 milligram tablet prescribed for unspecified diagnosis. 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. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. The submitted documentation shows the enrollee received the drug at issue from a pharmacy. The plans Evidence of Coverage states that if an enrollee pays the full cost of a prescription, the enrollee may submit a request for reimbursement with proof of payment to ask the plan to pay its share of the cost. The enrollee provided a statement from the pharmacy indicating full payment was made for the drug at issue. Therefore, we determined the reimbursement criteria have been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

At issue is Diltiazem Hydrochloride ER 240 milligram tablet prescribed for unspecified diagnosis. 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. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. The submitted documentation shows the enrollee received the drug at issue from a pharmacy. The plans Evidence of Coverage states that if an enrollee pays the full cost of a prescription, the enrollee may submit a request for reimbursement with proof of payment to ask the plan to pay its share of the cost. The enrollee provided a statement from the pharmacy indicating full payment was made for the drug at issue. Therefore, we determined the reimbursement criteria have been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

At issue is Levothyroxine Sodium 75 microgram tablet prescribed for unspecified diagnosis. 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. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. The submitted documentation shows the enrollee received the drug at issue from a pharmacy. The plans Evidence of Coverage states that if an enrollee pays the full cost of a prescription, the enrollee may submit a request for reimbursement with proof of payment to ask the plan to pay its share of the cost. The enrollee provided a statement from the pharmacy indicating full payment was made for the drug at issue. Therefore, we determined the reimbursement criteria have been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

At issue is Humira Pen 40 milligram per 0.8 milliliter solution prescribed for unspecified diagnosis. 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. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. The submitted documentation shows the enrollee received the drug at issue from a pharmacy. The plans Evidence of Coverage states that if an enrollee pays the full cost of a prescription, the enrollee may submit a request for reimbursement with proof of payment to ask the plan to pay its share of the cost. The enrollee provided a statement from the pharmacy indicating full payment was made for the drug at issue. Therefore, we determined the reimbursement criteria have been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

At issue is Oxycodone/Acetaminophen 10/325 milligram tablet prescribed for unspecified diagnosis. 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. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. The submitted documentation shows the enrollee received the drug at issue from a pharmacy. The plans Evidence of Coverage states that if an enrollee pays the full cost of a prescription, the enrollee may submit a request for reimbursement with proof of payment to ask the plan to pay its share of the cost. The enrollee provided a statement from the pharmacy indicating full payment was made for the drug at issue. Therefore, we determined the reimbursement criteria have been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Cyclogyl 1 percent eye drops prescribed for unknown diagnosis. 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. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The plan submitted documentation that shows the enrollee was still in the deductible stage of the Part D benefit when the requested drug was purchased. The plans Evidence of Coverage states that the enrollee is responsible for the full cost of covered drugs until the deductible amount is satisfied. We determined this drug was paid correctly and no reimbursement is required by the plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Flurbiprofen 0.03 percent eye drops prescribed for unknown diagnosis. 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. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The plan submitted documentation that shows the enrollee was still in the deductible stage of the Part D benefit when the requested drug was purchased. The plans Evidence of Coverage states that the enrollee is responsible for the full cost of covered drugs until the deductible amount is satisfied. We determined this drug was paid correctly and no reimbursement is required by the plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Phenylephrine 2.5 percent eye drops prescribed for unknown diagnosis. 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. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The plan submitted documentation that shows the enrollee was still in the deductible stage of the Part D benefit when the requested drug was purchased. The plans Evidence of Coverage states that the enrollee is responsible for the full cost of covered drugs until the deductible amount is satisfied. We determined this drug was paid correctly and no reimbursement is required by the plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Tropicamide 1 percent eye drops prescribed for unknown diagnosis. 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. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The plan submitted documentation that shows the enrollee was still in the deductible stage of the Part D benefit when the requested drug was purchased. The plans Evidence of Coverage states that the enrollee is responsible for the full cost of covered drugs until the deductible amount is satisfied. We determined this drug was paid correctly and no reimbursement is required by the plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Vigamox 0.5 percent eye drops prescribed for unknown diagnosis. 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. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The plan submitted documentation that shows the enrollee was still in the deductible stage of the Part D benefit when the requested drug was purchased. The plans Evidence of Coverage states that the enrollee is responsible for the full cost of covered drugs until the deductible amount is satisfied. We determined this drug was paid correctly and no reimbursement is required by the plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

At issue is Tetanus/Diphtheria/Acellular Pertussis vaccination and administration fee prescribed for vaccination. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review of this request for coverage. We reviewed all documentation submitted for review, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. The submitted documentation shows the enrollee received the vaccine at the prescriber's office. The plans Evidence of Coverage states that payment for vaccines including administration fee is required up front from the enrollee when provided at an out of network pharmacy or prescribers office. If an enrollee pays the full cost of a prescription, the enrollee may submit a request for reimbursement with proof of payment to ask the plan to pay its share of the cost. The enrollee provided a statement from the prescribers office and a cancelled check indicating full payment was made for the vaccine and administration fee. Therefore, we determined the reimbursement criteria have been met.