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

At issue is Venclexta 100 milligram tablets to treat myelodysplastic syndrome, in combination with Vidaza. 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 documentation indicates the prescriber ordered the drug at issue for the enrollees diagnosis. The Medicare approved compendia contain a citation to support the use of the drug for the noted diagnosis. The Medicare approved compendium Drugdex contains a citation to support the use of the drug at issue for myelodysplastic syndrome, in combination with Azacitidine or Decitabine. As such, the submitted documentation supports the drug was prescribed for a medically accepted indication. The plan has prior authorization coverage criteria that must be met prior to approval. The enrollee satisfies the Plans coverage criteria. The criteria indicates the enrollee must have a Food and Drug Administration approved indication. The Medicare approved compendia contain a citation to support the use of the drug for the enrollees noted diagnosis. Therefore, an exception to the plans coverage criteria is medically necessary. 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 Hizentra 4 gram per 20 milliliter pump infusion. 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. Based on the information provided, we determined the drug may be eligible for coverage under Part B under Medicare rules.The plan does not offer supplemental (additional) coverage for this drug. If the enrollee purchased drugs that are excluded, the enrollee must pay for them. 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 Zonisamide 100 milligram capsules to treat abnormal electroencephalogram findings. 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 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: Favorable

At issue is coverage for Dalfampridine ER (extended-release) 10 milligram tablet, 60 tablets per 30 days, prescribed to improve walking speed in an enrollee with multiple sclerosis. 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 documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The plan has prior authorization requirements for this drug that must be met before coverage can be approved. The prescriber statement and medical records submitted at reconsideration support that the plans requirements have been met. The drug has been prescribed to improve walking speed in an enrollee with multiple sclerosis, which is a medically accepted indication for the drug outlined in the Medicare approved compendia. The enrollee demonstrated sustained walking impairment, but with the ability to walk 25 feet prior to starting the requested medication. The enrollee is 18 years of age or older. The drug has been prescribed by or in consultation with a neurologist. The enrollee does not have a history of seizure or renal impairment. The enrollee has been taking this drug since June 16, 2017, and the prescriber has noted that the enrollee has benefited from treatment with the drug. As such, the documentation submitted at reconsideration supports coverage for the drug. Furthermore, the quantity requested does not exceed the plans quantity limit for the drug.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 a request for coverage of Prolia 60 milligram per milliliter prefilled injection syringe. 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 documentation submitted.The submitted documentation does not include medical records or evidence of a prescribed diagnosis. During this review, a request was submitted to the prescriber to provide the diagnosis and supporting medical records and to address the plans coverage requirements for this drug. 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. 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 Colchicine 0.6 milligram tablet to treat gout. The case was auto-forwarded by the plan. 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 drug is not on the plans formulary. 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 documentation does not support why the formulary alternatives, required by the plan 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 drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Rexulti 1 milligram tablet, 45 per 30 days, to treat major depressive disorder. The Part D plan denied the request. 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.We requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support the quantity prescribed was medically necessary for the enrollee. However, we did not receive the requested information.The plan limits the amount of Rexulti 1 milligram tablet to 30 per 30 days. The prescriber has not indicated that the number of doses of the requested drug allowed by the plan would likely be ineffective in treating the diagnosis or would be likely to cause harm. Therefore, an exception to the plans coverage criteria is not supported. 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 Lidocaine 5 percent patch to treat dorsalgia (back pain). 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 documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The provided diagnosis of dorsalgia, by itself, is not sufficient to determine if the requested drug is being used for a medically accepted indication. During this review, a request was submitted to the prescriber to clarify the diagnosis being treated and to provide supporting medical records. However, the prescriber did not respond to the request. As such, the available documentation indicates that the requested 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 Buprenorphine Hydrochloride-Naloxone Hydrochloride 8 milligram-2 milligram film, 56 per 14 days, to treat post-laminectomy syndrome and unspecified opioid use. The case was auto-forwarded by the plan.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.We requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support the quantity prescribed was medically necessary for the enrollee. However, we did not receive the requested information.The plan limits the amount of Buprenorphine Hydrochloride-Naloxone Hydrochloride 8 milligram-2 milligram film to 90 per 30 days. The prescriber has not indicated that the number of doses of the requested drug allowed by the plan would likely be ineffective in treating the diagnosis or would be likely to cause harm. Therefore, an exception to the plans coverage criteria is not supported. 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 Otezla 30 tablet to treat plaque psoriasis. 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 at the reconsideration level.A request was submitted to the prescriber to address the prior authorization criteria and to provide supporting medical records. However, we did not receive the requested information. The plan has prior authorization requirements for this drug. These requirements must be met before coverage can be extended. The submitted documentation does not satisfy the plans coverage criteria.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 Toviaz extended release 4 milligram tablet to treat the enrollees condition. 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.Toviaz 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 reviewer determined that the tiering exception criteria are not met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Ketamine 100 milligram troche prescribed to treat chronic pain syndrome and major depressive disorder. 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.Drugs that fall into the category of bulk powders do not meet the definition of a Part D drug. The requested drug is consistent of bulk powder ingredients and is excluded from coverage under Part D and not eligible for reimbursement. This decision does not address the medical necessity or appropriateness of the requested drug. It only establishes if payment can be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Shingrix 50 microgram per 0.5 milliliter kit. 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 was administered the vaccine in the prescriber's office. According to the plan's Evidence of Coverage, if the 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 claim form and prescriber's statement including the amount charged for the vaccine and indication of enrollee payment. However, the statement indicates that the charge for the vaccine and administration fee was more than the enrollee paid. Therefore, reimbursement amounts cannot be determined and criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Shingrix 50 microgram per 0.5 milliliter kit. 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 was administered the vaccine in the prescriber's office. According to the plan's Evidence of Coverage, if the 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 claim form and prescriber's statement including the amount charged for the vaccine and and indication of enrollee payment. However, the statement indicates that the charge for the vaccine and administration fee was more than the enrollee paid. Therefore, reimbursement amounts cannot be determined and criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Allopurinol 300 milligram tablet prescribed to treat an unspecified diagnosis. The Part D plan auto-forwarded 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 requested drug as a self-administered drug in a hospital outpatient stay. According to the plan's Evidence of Coverage, if the 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 hospital statement including the amount charged for the self-administered drug. However, the enrollees proof of payment in the form of a receipt was not provided. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Dorzolamide 2 percent drop prescribed to treat an unspecified diagnosis. The Part D plan auto-forwarded 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 requested drug as a self-administered drug in a hospital outpatient stay. According to the plan's Evidence of Coverage, if the 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 hospital statement including the amount charged for the self-administered drug. However, the enrollees proof of payment in the form of a receipt was not provided. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Ezetimibe 10 milligram tablet prescribed to treat an unspecified diagnosis. The Part D plan auto-forwarded 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 requested drug as a self-administered drug in a hospital outpatient stay. According to the plan's Evidence of Coverage, if the 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 hospital statement including the amount charged for the self-administered drug. However, the enrollees proof of payment in the form of a receipt was not provided. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Furosemide 20 milligram tablet prescribed to treat an unspecified diagnosis. The Part D plan auto-forwarded 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 requested drug as a self-administered drug in a hospital outpatient stay. According to the plan's Evidence of Coverage, if the 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 hospital statement including the amount charged for the self-administered drug. However, the enrollees proof of payment in the form of a receipt was not provided. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Humalog 100 unit per milliliter injection to treat an unspecified diagnosis. The Part D plan auto-forwarded 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 requested drug as a self-administered drug in a hospital outpatient stay. According to the plan's Evidence of Coverage, if the 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 hospital statement including the amount charged for the self-administered drug. However, the enrollees proof of payment in the form of a receipt was not provided. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Humulin R 100 unit injection prescribed to treat an unspecified diagnosis. The Part D plan auto-forwarded 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 requested drug as a self-administered drug in a hospital outpatient stay. According to the plan's Evidence of Coverage, if the 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 hospital statement including the amount charged for the self-administered drug. However, the enrollees proof of payment in the form of a receipt was not provided. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Levothyroxine 125 microgram tablet prescribed to treat an unspecified diagnosis. The Part D plan auto-forwarded 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 requested drug as a self-administered drug in a hospital outpatient stay. According to the plan's Evidence of Coverage, if the 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 hospital statement including the amount charged for the self-administered drug. However, the enrollees proof of payment in the form of a receipt was not provided. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Levothyroxine 150 microgram tablet prescribed to treat an unspecified diagnosis. The Part D plan auto-forwarded 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 requested drug as a self-administered drug in a hospital outpatient stay. According to the plan's Evidence of Coverage, if the 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 hospital statement including the amount charged for the self-administered drug. However, the enrollees proof of payment in the form of a receipt was not provided. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Losartan Potassium 50 milligram tablet prescribed to treat an unspecified diagnosis. The Part D plan auto-forwarded 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 requested drug as a self-administered drug in a hospital outpatient stay. According to the plan's Evidence of Coverage, if the 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 hospital statement including the amount charged for the self-administered drug. However, the enrollees proof of payment in the form of a receipt was not provided. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria have not been met.