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

At issue is coverage for Forteo 600 microgram per 2.4 milliliter solution pen injector to treat post-menopausal osteoporosis with high risk of fracture. The Part D plan denied the request for coverage and then auto forwarded the case to us for review.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all available documentation.During this review, we requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support that all formulary alternatives were tried and failed or were deemed contraindicated. However, the prescriber did not respond to our request.The requested drug is not on the plans formulary. To grant an exception for a drug that is not on the plans formulary, alternative formulary drugs must have been tried and failed or must be deemed contraindicated. In this case, the prescriber has not provided patient-specific clinical rationale as to why the alternative drugs on the plans formulary to treat the enrollees condition would likely not be as effective as the requested drug and/or would likely cause adverse reactions or other harm. Additionally, the submitted documentation does not support that the enrollee has tried and failed all of the formulary alternative drugs. Therefore, the formulary exception requirements have not been met.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Vyvanse 60 milligram capsule to treat attention deficit disorder. The Part D plan denied the request for coverage.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all available documentation.The requested drug is not on the plans formulary. To grant an exception for a drug that is not on the plans formulary, alternative formulary drugs must have been tried and failed or must be deemed contraindicated. In this case, the prescriber has not provided patient-specific clinical rationale as to why the alternative drugs on the plans formulary to treat the enrollees condition would likely not be as effective as the requested drug and/or would likely cause adverse reactions or other harm. Additionally, the submitted documentation does not support that the enrollee has tried and failed all of the formulary alternative drugs. Therefore, the formulary exception requirements have not been met.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Apidra 100 unit/milliliter vial to treat enrollee's condition. The Part D plan denied the request for coverage.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all available documentation. During this review, we requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support a diagnosis and all formulary alternatives were tried and failed or were deemed contraindicated. We received additional documentation and included it in the review.The submitted documentation indicates that the requested drug is being administered via a home infusion pump. Medicare classifies home infusion pumps as durable medical equipment. Medicare rules state that Medicare Part B pays for the rental and purchase of durable medical equipment. Additionally, payment will be made under Medicare Part B for supplies necessary for the effective use of durable medical equipment, including drugs and biologicals, which must be put directly into the equipment. Any drug available for coverage under Medicare Part B cannot be covered under Part D, per Medicare rules. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for Medicare Part D coverage.This decision does not address the medical necessity of the item. It only establishes that payment cannot be made under the Medicare Part D benefit. Please submit the request for coverage through Medicare Part B.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Tacrolimus 0.1 percent scalp solution to treat alopecia. The Part D plan auto forwarded the case to us for review.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all available documentation. Drugs prescribed to treat hair loss/promote hair growth are excluded from the Part D coverage. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from Medicare Part D coverage.This decision does not address the medical necessity 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 Gleostine 100 milligram capsules prescribed for an unknown diagnosis. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The plan submitted documentation that shows the enrollee was in the deductible stage for part of the cost for the drug and entered the initial stage for the remaining amount. The enrollee is responsible for the full cost of covered drugs until the deductible amount is satisfied. After the deductible was met, the plan calculated reimbursement based on the total cost of the drug, minus the required copayment amount, and minus the difference between what the plan normally pays for the drug and what the pharmacy charges. We determined the Gleostine was paid correctly and no further reimbursement is required by the plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Azelaic Acid bulk powder compounded drug. 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 considered a bulk powder/ or is consistent of bulk powder ingredients and is excluded from coverage under Part D. 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 Ivermectin bulk powder compounded drug. 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 considered a bulk powder/ or is consistent of bulk powder ingredients and is excluded from coverage under Part D. 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 Metronidazole bulk powder compounded drug. 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 considered a bulk powder/ or is consistent of bulk powder ingredients and is excluded from coverage under Part D. 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: Favorable

At issue is coverage for Trulicity 0.75 milligram per 0.5 milliliter pen injector to treat type II diabetes mellitus. The Part D plan auto-forwarded the case to us for review.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all available documentation.In order for a drug to be covered by Medicare Part D, it must be prescribed for a medically accepted indication outlined in the Medicare approved compendia. The Medicare approved compendium, DrugDex, includes a label citation for the use of the requested drug to treat type II diabetes mellitus. Therefore, the requested drug is being prescribed to treat a medically accepted indication.The plan has prior authorization requirements that must be met before coverage of this drug is provided. The requirements indicate the enrollee must have a medically accepted indication. As the Medicare approved compendia support the use of the drug for the enrollee's diagnosis, the criteria have been met. 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 Testosterone pellet a compound drug prescribed for an unspecified diagnosis. 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. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. The plan provided documentation showing the enrollee requested coverage for a compounded drug. However, the Universal Claim Form for a Compounded Medication is not provided listing each ingredient, dosage, and the National Drug Codes (NDCs). Therefore, we determined the plan is not required to cover the compounded drug. 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 Acetaminophen 352 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 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 Acetaminophen as a self-administered drug in the hospital. 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 is not legible. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Aspirin 81 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 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 Aspirin as a self-administered drug in the hospital. 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 is not legible. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Atorvastatin Calcium 40 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 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 Atorvastatin Calcium as a self-administered drug in the hospital. 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 is not legible. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Calcium Carbonate 500 milligram chewable 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 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 Calcium Carbonate as a self-administered drug in the hospital. 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 is not legible. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Clopidogrel Bisulfate 300 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 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 Clopidogrel Bisulfate as a self-administered drug in the hospital. 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 is not legible. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Docusate Sodium 100 milligram capsule 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 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 Docusate Sodium as a self-administered drug in the hospital. 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 is not legible. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Duloxetine Hydrochloride 30 milligram capsule 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 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 Duloxetine Hydrochloride as a self-administered drug in the hospital. 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 is not legible. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Isosorbide Mononitrate extended release 30 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 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 Isosorbide Mononitrate extended release tablet as a self-administered drug in the hospital. 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 is not legible. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Lidocaine 5 percent patch 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 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 Lidocaine as a self-administered drug in the hospital. 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 is not legible. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Lisinopril 10 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 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 Lisinopril as a self-administered drug in the hospital. 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 is not legible. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Metoprolol Succinate 100 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 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 Metoprolol Succinate as a self-administered drug in the hospital. 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 is not legible. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Nitroglycerin 0.4 milligram sublingual 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 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 Nitroglycerin sublingual as a self-administered drug in the hospital. 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 is not legible. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Omeprazole 20 milligram capsule 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 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 Omeprazole as a self-administered drug in the hospital. 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 is not legible. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria have not been met.