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

At issue is Butrans 5 microgram per hour weekly patch to treat pain due to lumbago with sciatica of an unspecified side. 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 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 Neupogen 300 micrograms per 0.5 milliliter injection syringe to treat neutropenia, unspecified and liver transplant status. 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 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 Catapres-TTS-3 0.3 milligram per 24 hour patch to treat fibromyalgia. 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. Please note, this reconsideration decision was based on the Plans 2023 coverage criteria
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Stelara 90 milligram per milliliter solution prefilled syringe to treat pyoderma gangerosum. 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 Prolia 60 milligram per milliliter injection to treat osteoporosis. 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 determined that the plan is not required to cover the drug. The information submitted shows that Prolia will be administered by the physician, or by auxillary personnel employed by the physician and under the physicians personal supervision. The documentation also supports that the drug will be shipped to the physicians office. Drugs furnished Incident To a physicians service are excluded from Medicare Part D coverage. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from coverage.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 Vascepa 1 gram capsule to treat pure hyperglyceridemia. 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 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 Dronabinol 2.5 milligram capsule to treat abnormal weight loss. 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 Xeljanx 5 milligram tablet to treat lichen planopilaris. 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 Stelara 45 milligram (mg) per 0.5 milliliter (ml) prefilled syringe to treat pyoderma gangrenosum. 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 Zolpidem Tartrate 5 milligram tablet to treat insomnia, unspecified. 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 has prior authorization requirements for this drug. These requirements must be met before coverage can be extended. The prescriber has stated that the patient has not tried and failed Doxepin 3 milligram or 6 milligram tablets and has no contradiction to the drug. 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 Baclofen powder 5 milligram for spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy. 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.The record shows the Baclofen powder 5 milligram is part of a compounded drug and each ingredient is reviewed individually. Medicare Part D does not cover drugs that do not meet the definition of a Part D drug. None of the ingredients within the compounded drug are eligible for Part D coverage. Therefore, we determined that the plan is not required to cover or reimburse for the Baclofen powder 5 milligram compounded drug.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is PCCA-Plus Oral Suspending Vehicle for spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy. 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.The record shows the PCCA-Plus Oral Suspending Vehicle is part of a compounded drug and each ingredient is reviewed individually. Medicare Part D does not cover drugs that do not meet the definition of a Part D drug. None of the ingredients within the compounded drug are eligible for Part D coverage. Therefore, we determined that the plan is not required to cover or reimburse for the PCCA-Plus Oral Suspending Vehicle compounded drug.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Sweet Sugar Free Syrup for spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy. 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.The record shows the Sweet Sugar Free Syrup is part of a compounded drug and each ingredient is reviewed individually. Medicare Part D does not cover drugs that do not meet the definition of a Part D drug. None of the ingredients within the compounded drug are eligible for Part D coverage. Therefore, we determined that the plan is not required to cover or reimburse for the Sweet Sugar Free Syrup compounded drug.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Hydrocortisone Acetate 25 milligram suppository to treat rectal bleeding. 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 Lorazepam 0.5 milligram tablets, 30 tablets per 5 days to treat anxiety disorder, unspecified. 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 a medically accepted indication, medical records, and a prescriber statement to support that the quantity prescribed was medically necessary for the enrollee. However, we did not receive the requested information.The plan limits the amount of Lorazepam 0.5 milligram tablets to 4 tablets per day or 20 tablets per 5 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 Sucralfate 1 gram per 10 milliliter solution to treat an unknown 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.We requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested a medically accepted indication, medical records, and a prescriber statement to support that the enrollee has satisfied the plans prior authorization coverage criteria. However, we did not receive the requested information.No documentation was provided by the prescriber. We requested information from the prescriber but no information was received. We are not able to determine whether the requested drug(s) was prescribed for a medically accepted indication. Therefore, the 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

Prednisone 10 milligram tablet was requested to treat the enrollees condition. 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.A request was submitted to the prescriber to provide a diagnosis, to address the prior authorization criteria and to provide supporting medical records. A reply from the prescriber was not received. Without a diagnosis, it cannot be established that the requested drug is being prescribed for a medically accepted indication. As such, the requested drug does not satisfy the definition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D. A physician reviewed your appeal and determined that the plan is not required to cover the requested drug.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Rybelsus 7 milligram tablet to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus with unspecified 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 a medically accepted indication, medical records, and a prescriber statement to support that the enrollee has satisfied the plans step therapy requirements. However, we did not receive the requested information.The prescriber has not indicated that all alternatives required by the plan have been tried and failed, or why the plans required step therapy drugs would likely not be as effective as the requested drug. Additionally, because Rybelsus is not covered under Medicare Part D, a tiering exception cannot be considered. A physician reviewer determined that neither step therapy nor step therapy exception criteria are met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Uceris extended release 9 milligram tablet to treat 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.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. 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 Fulphila 6 milligram per 0.6 milliliter solution prefilled syringe for prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia. 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 a covered diagnosis and that 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 Brimonidine/Timolol 0.2/0.5 percent ophthalmic solution prescribed for an unspecified diagnosis. The Part D plan auto-forwarded the enrollees request for additional reimbursement.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 plan submitted documentation that shows the claim for the requested drug was approved and copayment was charged to the enrollee at the point of sale. The plans 2022 Evidence of Coverage indicates reimbursement is calculated based on the total cost of the drug, minus the required deductible, copayment or coinsurance amount, and minus the difference between what the plan approves for the drug and what the pharmacy charges. We determined this drug was paid correctly and no further reimbursement is required by the plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Labetalol 300 milligram tablet prescribed for an unspecified diagnosis. The Part D plan auto-forwarded the enrollees request for additional reimbursement.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 plan submitted documentation that shows the claim for the requested drug was approved and copayment was charged to the enrollee at the point of sale. The plans 2022 Evidence of Coverage indicates reimbursement is calculated based on the total cost of the drug, minus the required deductible, copayment or coinsurance amount, and minus the difference between what the plan approves for the drug and what the pharmacy charges. We determined this drug was paid correctly and no further reimbursement is required by the plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Ondansetron 4 milligram (mg) tablet. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the submitted documentation to perform an independent and de novo review.The submitted documentation does not include medical records or evidence of a prescribed diagnosis. Therefore, it cannot be determined if the drug was 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 Prednisolone 1 percent suspension prescribed for an unspecified diagnosis. The Part D plan auto-forwarded the enrollees request for additional reimbursement.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 plan submitted documentation that shows the claim for the requested drug was approved and copayment was charged to the enrollee at the point of sale. The plans 2022 Evidence of Coverage indicates reimbursement is calculated based on the total cost of the drug, minus the required deductible, copayment or coinsurance amount, and minus the difference between what the plan approves for the drug and what the pharmacy charges. We determined this drug was paid correctly and no further reimbursement is required by the plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Epclusa 400-100 milligram tablet to treat chronic hepatitis C. 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 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 Tremfya 100 milligram (mg) /milliliter (ml) auto injector to treat 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, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.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.