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

At issue is Dextroamphetamine/Amphetamine extended release (ER) 30 milligram capsule for 60 capsules per 30 days to treat schizoaffective disorder and treatment resistant depression. 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. In addition, since the coverage of the requested treatment is denied, an exception to the plans quantity limit coverage criteria is not supported. 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 Buprenorphine Hydrochloride 6 milligram sublingual tablet. The Part D plan denied the request due to the following diagnosis determined as not a medically accepted indication: chronic pain syndrome, burn of unspecified degree of multiple sites of right shoulder and upper limb, except wrist and hand, subsequent encounter, and unspecified disorder of synovium and tendon, unspecified site.  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, a diagnosis of opioid dependence, uncomplicated, was given. However, the documentation provided by the prescriber did not support this diagnosis. 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

At issue is Humulin R Kwikpen 500 units per milliliter, 85 units per day, to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. 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 Cevimeline Hydrochloride 30 milligram capsule to treat Sjogrens syndrome. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The 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: Favorable

At issue is Procrit 40000 units per milliliter to treat anemia in chronic kidney disease. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. The documentation satisfies the plans coverage criteria. In the reconsideration appeal the prescriber submitted a statement, office notes and laboratory reports. The enrollee has adequate iron stores. 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 Tadalafil 20 milligram tablet to treat portopulmonary hypertension. 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 this form 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 Diclofenac Sodium 3 percent gel to treat plantar fascial fibromatosis. 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 diagnoses are off-label uses. The Medicare approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for the treatment of these diagnoses. 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 Buprenorphine Hydrochloride 2 milligram sublingual tablet to treat chronic 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. 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: Favorable

At issue is coverage for Mycophenolate Sodium 180 milligram delayed release tablet prescribed for kidney transplant rejection prophylaxis. The Part D plan denied the request for coverage stating that the drug would be available for coverage under Medicare Part B, as the enrollee was eligible for Medicare Part A coverage on the date of the transplant. 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. Additionally, we researched Medicare systems.Medicare systems show that the enrollee underwent a kidney transplant on February 2, 2020. Additionally, Medicare systems show that the enrollee was not eligible for Medicare Part A coverage any time prior to June 1, 2020. As such, the enrollee was not eligible for Medicare Part A coverage on the date of transplant and coverage for this drug would not be available under Medicare Part B. The drug is being prescribed for a medically accepted indication outlined in the Medicare-approved compendia. As such, coverage for this drug under Medicare Part D 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 Omeprazole/Sodium Bicarbonate 20/1100 milligram capsule. 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 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 the formulary alternative drugs. As such, the formulary exception criteria 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 Gralise extended release 600 milligram tablet to treat other chronic 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, a diagnosis of pudendal neuralgia and chronic rectal pain. The use of the requested drug to treat the provided diagnosis are off-label uses. The Medicare approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for the treatment of these diagnoses. 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: Favorable

At issue is Ibrance 100 milligram tablets to treat metastatic HR positive, HER2 negative breast cancer. 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 compendia support the drug at issue is indicated for advanced or metastatic breast cancer, HER2 negative, HR positive, as initial therapy in combination with an aromatase inhibitor. The enrollee meets the criteria and is taking the drug at issue in combination with Letrozole. 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 Kisqali 600 milligram tablets to treat metastatic breast cancer. 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 Repatha Pushtronex 420 milligram per 3.5 milliliter injection solution to treat mixed hyperlipidemia in an enrollee with coronary artery disease. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.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. We received additional documentation and included it in the review.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 Morphine Sulfate Extended Release 60 milligram tablets. The Part D plan auto forwarded the request.We received the submitted documentation to perform an independent and de novo review.We requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support a diagnosis and the quantity prescribed was medically necessary for the enrollee. However, we did not receive the requested information. 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 a tiering exception request for Linzess 290 microgram capsule to treat enrollee's 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 medical records and a prescriber statement to support all lower-tier drugs to treat the enrollees condition were tried and failed or were contraindicated. However, we did not receive the information requested.Linzess is a brand drug on Tier 4 of the plans formulary. The prescriber has not indicated if all alternatives required by the plan have been tried and failed, or why the plans lower tiered drugs would likely not be as effective as the requested drug. Therefore, this drug is not eligible for a tiering exception.A physician reviewer determined that tiering exception criteria are not met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Methadone Hydrochloride 10 milligram tablets. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the submitted documentation to perform an independent and de novo review.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 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 Lidocaine 5 percent patch to treat left hip 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.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. We received additional documentation and included it in the review.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 Hetlioz 20-milligram capsule to treat circadian rhythm sleep disorder, free running type (non-24). The plan denied the request.We performed 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 your prescriber to send us a prescriber statement, answers to prior authorization coverage criteria, documented history and etiology of the enrollees sleep disorder, and medical records. However, we did not receive the documentation.Your plan has prior authorization requirements for this drug that must be met before they will cover the requested drug. The documentation provided does not show the enrollee has satisfied the plan's coverage criteria.A physician reviewed your appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Buprenorphine 10 microgram per hour patch. 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 coverage for Olanzapine 5 milligram tablet. The Part D plan auto-forwarded the case to us for review.We received the submitted documentation to perform an independent and de novo review. We reviewed all the documentation submitted.During this review, we requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support a coverable diagnosis and to address the alternative drugs included in the plans formulary to treat the diagnosis. The prescriber did not respond to the request.The Part D plan is responsible for determining whether the requested drug has been 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. Therefore, it cannot be established that the 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 Nucynta ER (extended release) 250 milligram tablet to treat severe pain requiring daily, around the clock, long-term opioid treatment. 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 the quantity prescribed was medically necessary for the enrollee. However, we did not receive the requested information.The plan limits the amount of opioids to 200 morphine milligram equivalent per day. The plan has indicated the enrollees prescription history and the drug at issue will exceed the plans limitation. The prescriber has not indicated the medical necessity for exceeding the plans limitation. 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 Humalog 10 milliliter vial prescribed for an unspecified diagnosis. The Part D plan denied the request for additional 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. The plans 2023 Evidence of Coverage indicates reimbursement is calculated based on the total cost of the drug, minus the required copayment, and minus the difference between the plans approved amount for the drug and what the pharmacy charges. The submitted documentation that shows the enrollee was charged $140.00 for a 44 day supply of the requested Humalog. The plan provided documentation showing a reimbursement of $70.00 was issued to the enrollee for an incorrect calculation of copay at the point of sale. The plan's Evidence of Coverage indicates that insulin has a copay of $35 for up to a 31 day supply. Therefore, two copays were applied for the 44 day supply of the requested insulin totaling $70.00. Therefore, no further reimbursement is required by the plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Hydralazine Hydrochloride 25 milligram tablet to treat an unspecified diagnosis. The Part D plan denied the enrollees request for 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 reversed for date of fill January 10, 2023, and then paid for the correct copayment of $4.13 at the point of sale. The plans Evidence of Coverage indicates reimbursement is calculated based on the total cost of the drug, minus the required copayment amount, and minus the difference between what the plan approves for the drug and what the pharmacy charges. The enrollee did not provide a receipt as proof of payment to indicate the amount they were charged. Therefore, no further reimbursement is required at this time.