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

At issue is coverage for Fosfomycin Tromethamine 3 gram powder packet to treat streptococcal infection of an unspecified site in a carrier of other specified bacterial diseases. 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 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 a direct member reimbursement request for Dofetilide 250 microgram capsules. The Part D plan denied the request.We received a 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 drug at issue was purchased at a retail pharmacy, which is not within the Specialty network. Purchasing drugs at a retail pharmacy will generate retail copays. The drug at issue is a specialty drug, which are limited to a recurring 31-day supply. The drug was filled for a 90-day supply at a retail pharmacy. The claim was paid appropriately at the point of sale as the enrollee utilized a retail pharmacy. It has been determined that the plan is not required to further reimburse the enrollee.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Diclofenac Epolamine 1.3% patch to treat chronic pain due to lumbar spondylosis. 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 covered diagnosis and that the enrollee has satisfied the plans prior authorization coverage criteria. 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(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 syringe to treat age related osteoporosis. 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 Sofosbuvir-Velpatasvir 400-100 mg tablet to treat Chronic Hepatitis C, genotype 1a, treatment naive, without cirrhosis. 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. A request was submitted to the prescriber to provide a diagnosis, to clarify the medical history, to address the nonformulary exception criteria, and to provide supporting medical records. A reply from the prescriber was not received.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 Santyl 250 units per gram ointment, 900 grams per 30 days, to treat pressure ulcer of sacral region. 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 Santyl 250 units per gram ointment to 180 grams 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 Lidocaine 5 percent patch to treat osteoarthritis pain. 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. At reconsideration, the diagnoses of chronic pain syndrome, osteoarthritis, thoracic pain, lumbar pain, and fibromyalgia were submitted. However, no medical records are submitted that support these diagnosis. We requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records to clarify the diagnosis and information was also requested to describe, in detail, the type of pain the enrollee is experiencing. 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(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 a tiering exception request for Brimonidine Tartrate-Timolol Maleate 0.2-0.5 percent ophthalmic solution to treat primary open-angle glaucoma. 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. During this review, we requested a prescriber statement and supporting medical records from the prescriber to support that all lower-tier drugs to treat the enrollees condition were tried and failed or were contraindicated. The prescriber did not respond to the request.Brimonidine Tartrate-Timolol Maleate 0.2-0.5 percent ophthalmic solution is a generic drug on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. The prescriber has not addressed the drugs on the lower tiers of the plans formulary to treat the enrollees condition and provided patient specific clinical rationale as to why the lower-tiered drugs have been tried and failed, or are contraindicated. As such, the tiering exception requirements have not been met.A physician reviewer determined that tiering exception criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

At issue is Ocycontin ER 40-milligram tablet prescribed for diagnosis not provided. The Part D plan denied the request for reimbursement. We received a 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. Medicare records show SilverScript was the enrollees primary insurance when the requested drug was filled on May 3, 2021. The plan provided claim information showing the enrollee was in the Coverage Gap stage on this date of fill. According to the plans 2021 Evidence of Coverage, during the Coverage Gap stage the enrollee pays 25% of the price for brand name drugs. The enrollees cost share should be calculated based on 25% of the remaining amount after the Coverage Gap Discount is applied. Therefore, based on our findings, we determined the plan is required to provide reimbursement to the enrollee.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Atorvastatin Calcium 10 milligram tablet prescribed for unspecified diagnosis. The Part D plan auto-forwarded 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 includes a hospital statement showing the National Drug Code (NDC) for the self administered drug at issue is missing. Medicare rules state that drug claims must include a valid NDC that is listed with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Therefore, the drug is excluded from coverage under Medicare Part D and not eligible for reimbursement. This decision does not concern 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 Dexlansoprazole delayed release 60 milligram capsule prescribed for the enrollee's diagnosis. 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. Medicare records show the enrollee was not enrolled with the Part D plan for the dates of service requested. Therefore, we determined that the plan is not required to provide coverage or reimbursement for the requested drug.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Amlodipine Besylate 10 milligram tablet prescribed for an unspecified diagnosis. The Part D plan denied the additional reimbursement 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 that the enrollee is requesting reimbursement for the Amlodipine Besylate purchased at a net-work pharmacy. 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. In this case, documentation was provided showing the Medicare contracted price for the prescription was more than the plan allowed. The plan will only reimburse up to the contracted price of the drug, minus any deductible, copay or coinsurance. Therefore, we determined that the plan calculated reimbursement correctly and is not required to offer additional reimbursement.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Atorvastatin 20 milligram tablet prescribed for an unspecified diagnosis. The Part D plan denied the additional reimbursement 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 that the enrollee is requesting reimbursement for the Atorvastatin purchased at a net-work pharmacy. 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. In this case, documentation was provided showing the Medicare contracted price for the prescription was more than the plan allowed. The plan will only reimburse up to the contracted price of the drug, minus any deductible, copay or coinsurance. Therefore, we determined that the plan calculated reimbursement correctly and is not required to offer additional reimbursement.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Terazosin 2 milligram capsule prescribed for an unspecified diagnosis. The Part D plan denied the additional reimbursement 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 that the enrollee is requesting reimbursement for the Terazosin purchased at a net-work pharmacy. 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. In this case, documentation was provided showing the Medicare contracted price for the prescription was more than the plan allowed. The plan will only reimburse up to the contracted price of the drug, minus any deductible, copay or coinsurance. Therefore, we determined that the plan calculated reimbursement correctly and is not required to offer additional reimbursement.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Valsartan 320 milligram tablet prescribed for an unspecified diagnosis. The Part D plan denied the additional reimbursement 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 that the enrollee is requesting reimbursement for the Valsartan purchased at a net-work pharmacy. 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. In this case, documentation was provided showing the Medicare contracted price for the prescription was more than the plan allowed. The plan will only reimburse up to the contracted price of the drug, minus any deductible, copay or coinsurance. Therefore, we determined that the plan calculated reimbursement correctly and is not required to offer additional reimbursement.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Autoshield Pen Needle 30 gauge X 3/16 millimeter. The Part D plan auto-forwarded 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.Drugs prescribed that are available Over the Counter are excluded from coverage under Medicare Part D. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from coverage and not eligible for reimbursement.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Ferosul 325 milligram tablet 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. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.Drugs prescribed for use as vitamins and minerals are excluded from coverage under Medicare Part D. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Freestyle Libre 14 day reader prescribed for an unspecified diagnosis. The Part D plan auto-forwarded 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. Supplies for testing and monitoring blood glucose levels are not considered Part D drugs and may be covered under the Medicare Part B durable medical equipment benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Freestyle Libre 2 sensor kit prescribed for an unspecified diagnosis. The Part D plan auto-forwarded 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. Supplies for testing and monitoring blood glucose levels are not considered Part D drugs and may be covered under the Medicare Part B durable medical equipment benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Potassium Chloride extended release 10 milligram tablet prescribed for an unspecified diagnosis. The Part D plan denied 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 correctly 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 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 reimbursement for Torsemide 20 milligram tablet prescribed for an unspecified diagnosis. The Part D plan auto-forwarded 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 provided claim information for the enrollee indicating the drug at issue was dispensed at a pharmacy not in the plans network on the date the prescription was filled. In these instances, the enrollee may be responsible for paying the difference between what he/she pays for the drug at the out of network pharmacy and the cost that the plan would cover at an in network pharmacy. The documentation does not support an extreme emergency that would require the drug be immediately supplied and the drug could have been received from a network pharmacy. Therefore, we determined that the plan is not required to provide reimbursement for the requested drug.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is reimbursement for Torsemide 20 milligram tablet prescribed for an 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 plan provided claim information for the enrollee indicating the drug at issue was dispensed at a pharmacy not in the plans network on the date the prescription was filled. In these instances, the enrollee may be responsible for paying the difference between what he/she pays for the drug at the out of network pharmacy and the cost that the plan would cover at an in network pharmacy. The documentation does not support an extreme emergency that would require the drug be immediately supplied and the drug could have been received from a network pharmacy. Therefore, we determined that the plan is not required to provide reimbursement for the requested drug.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Vitamin D3 400 milligram tablet 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. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.Drugs prescribed for use as vitamins and minerals are excluded from coverage under Medicare Part D. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You requested the compound drug Monuril 3000 milligrams prescribed for a urinary tract infection. The Part D plan denied your request because the drug was not purchased in the United States. We performed an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read your 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 also researched Medicare systems and reviewed the enrollment data available. We determined that the plan is not required to cover Monuril because it was purchased in Germany. Drugs purchased outside of the United States are excluded from coverage. 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 Oxycontin 20 milligram tablet. The case was auto-forwarded by the plan.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 a discount card was applied to the purchase of the requested drug. Discount cards are intended for out-of-pocket paying consumers and may not be used with commercial health plans or any federal or state funded health care program, such as Medicare or Medicaid. When the enrollees benefit card was used, the enrollee acknowledged and agreed that the discount program will be treated as the primary payor with respect to the medications that are purchased through the discount program. Therefore, the plan is not required to cover or provide reimbursement for the requested drug.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Armour Thyroid 30 milligram tablet to treat hypothyroidism. 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.Drugs that are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are excluded from Medicare Part D coverage. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from coverage.