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

At issue is Potassium Chloride bulk powder prescribed for hypokalemia. The Part D 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 determined that the plan is not required to cover Potassium Chloride bulk powder. Drugs compounded from bulk powders are not Food and Drug Administration approved and are therefore not covered under Part D.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a formulary exception request for Rasuvo 22.5 milligram/0.45 milliliter injection solution prescribed for seronegative rheumatoid arthritis. The Part D 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. The prescriber submitted medical records and a supporting statement. The supporting statement did not indicate that all the formulary alternatives were tried and would be ineffective.A physician reviewed your appeal and determined that the plan is not required to cover Rasuvo.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a prior authorization request for Zolpidem Tartrate 5 milligram tablets prescribed for insomnia. The Part D plan denied coverage.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 records submitted at the reconsideration level. The documentation on hand includes a physician supporting statement. The supporting statement does not indicate that the enrollee satisfies the plan's prior authorization 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 Calcitriol 0.25 microgram capsule prescribed daily for the treatment of end stage renal 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 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. According to Medicare rules, the requested drug cannot be approved for separate payment under Part D when it's for treatment on a patient who is receiving dialysis. Medicare records show the enrollee is actively receiving dialysis. Therefore, the Calcitriol 0.25 microgram capsule must be billed by the renal dialysis facility. We determined that the plan is not required to cover the Calcitriol 0.25 microgram capsule. Please submit your request for this drug through the dialysis provider.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

At issue is a prior authorization request for Inlyta 5 milligram tablets prescribed for vulvar melanoma. The Part D plan denied coverage.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 records submitted at the reconsideration level. The submitted documentation indicates the enrollee is taking the requested drug in combination with Keytruda for metastatic melanoma. The prescriber submitted a Medicare approved journal article to support the use of the drug combination for the enrollees condition. An exception to the plans prior authorization coverage criteria can be granted.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 Restasis 0.05% eye drops prescribed for the enrollees condition. The Part D plan denied the request for a tiering exception.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.Restasis is a brand drug on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. There are no other drugs of the same type on the lower cost sharing tiers. Therefore, this drug is not eligible for a tiering exception.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the plan is not required to grant the request for a tiering exception.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Phospho-Trin 250 Neutra 155/852/130 milligram tablets prescribed for electrolyte abnormality. The Part D 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 determined that the plan is not required to cover Phospho-Trin 250 Neutra because it is a prescription vitamin product. Drugs prescribed for prescription vitamins and mineral products, except prenatal vitamins and fluoride preparations are excluded from coverage. The plan does not offer supplemental (additional) coverage for this drug. If the enrollee purchased drugs that are excluded, the enrollee must pay for them. This decision does not address the medical necessity or appropriateness of the drug. It only establishes that payment cannot be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a formulary exception request for Rybelsus 14 milligram tablets prescribed for type II diabetes mellitus without complications. The Part D 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 medical records and a prescriber statement to support all formulary alternatives were tried and failed. However, we did not receive the requested information.The submitted documentation did not indicate that all the formulary alternatives were tried and would be ineffective.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the plan is not required to cover Rybelsus.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Nexletol 180 milligram tablets prescribed for hypercholesterolemia. The Part D plan denied the request for a tiering exception.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.Nexletol is a brand drug on Tier 4 of the plans formulary. The prescriber submitted a supporting statement. The supporting statement did not address why all the drugs available on the lower tiers of the plans formulary would not work. Therefore, this drug is not eligible for a tiering exception.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the plan is not required to grant the request for a tiering exception.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride 10 milligram tablets prescribed for muscle spasm caused by osteoporosis and primary osteoarthritis. The Part D 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.The submitted documentation indicates the prescriber ordered the requested drug for the enrollees noted condition. The Medicare approved compendia do not support the use of the drug at issue for the enrollees condition. As the drug was not prescribed for a medically accepted indication, coverage cannot be allowed.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the plan is not required to cover the requested drug.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Eliquis 5 milligram tablets prescribed for atrial fibrillation. The Part D plan denied the request for a tiering exception.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.Eliquis is a brand drug on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. There are no other drugs of the same type on the lower cost sharing tiers. Therefore, this drug is not eligible for a tiering exception.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the plan is not required to grant the request for a tiering exception.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a formulary exception request for Advair Diskus 100/50 0.1 milligram/1 actuation-0.05 milligram/1 actuation inhalant prescribed for asthma. The Part D 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. The prescriber submitted medical records and a supporting statement. The supporting statement did not indicate that all the formulary alternatives were tried and would be ineffective.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the plan is not required to cover Advair Diskus.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a formulary exception request for Otezla 30 milligram tablets prescribed for psoriatic arthritis. The Part D 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. The submitted documentation did not indicate that all the formulary alternatives were tried and would be ineffective.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the plan is not required to cover Otezla.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Soolantra 1% Cream to treat rosacea, unspecified. The Part D plan denied the request. 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 asked your prescriber to send us a prescriber statement, and answers to off formulary exception coverage criteria, and medical records. However, we did not receive the documentation.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 medical records do not support why other drugs on the plans formulary would not work for you.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% patch prescribed for severe back pain. The Part D 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 medical records and a prescriber statement. We received the requested information and included it in the review.The submitted documentation indicates the prescriber ordered the requested drug for the enrollees noted condition. The Medicare approved compendia do not support the use of the drug at issue for the enrollees condition. As the drug was not prescribed for a medically accepted indication, coverage cannot be allowed.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the plan is not required to cover the requested drug.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

At issue is Octagam 30-grams/300-milliliters Solution Intravenous to treat nonfamilial hypogammaglobulinemia with recurrent bacterial infections. 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 documentation satisfies the plans coverage criteria. A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a prior authorization request for Testosterone 2% gel pump prescribed for hypogonadotrophic hypogonadism. The Part D plan denied coverage.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 records submitted at the reconsideration level. The submitted documentation does not indicate that the enrollee satisfies the plan's prior authorization 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 Suboxone 8 milligram-2 milligram sublingual tablets prescribed for chronic pain. The Part D 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.The prescriber indicated on appeal that the enrollees diagnosis should be opioid dependence. However, the submitted documentation indicates the prescriber ordered the requested drug for chronic pain management. The Medicare approved compendia do not support the use of the drug at issue for the enrollees condition. As the drug was not prescribed for a medically accepted indication, coverage cannot be allowed.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the plan is not required to cover the requested drug.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Dronabinol 2.5 milligram capsules prescribed for anorexia. The Part D 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 determined that the plan is not required to cover Dronabinol because it was prescribed for anorexia. Drugs to treat anorexia, weight loss, or weight gain are excluded from coverage. The plan does not offer supplemental (additional) coverage for this drug. If the enrollee purchased drugs that are excluded, the enrollee must pay for them. This decision does not address the medical necessity or appropriateness of the drug. It only establishes that payment cannot be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Cosentyx 300 milligram dose-2 syringe prescribed for plaque psoriasis. The Part D plan denied your request.We received the case to perform 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 records submitted at the reconsideration level. Your plan has prior authorization requirements for this drug that must be met before they will cover the requested drug. The enrollee has not satisfied the plan's coverage criteria.A physician reviewed your appeal and determined that the plan is not required to cover Cosentyx. The physician reviewer also determined that an exception to the plans prior authorization requirements cannot be granted at this time.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Buprenorphine Hydrochloride 2 milligram sublingual tablet prescribed for major depressive disorder, recurrent. The Part D plan denied your request.We received the case to perform 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. The prescriber indicates Buprenorphine Hydrochloride 2 milligram sublingual tablet is prescribed to treat resistant depression in an enrollee with a diagnosis of major depressive disorder. However, Medicare approved compendia do not support the use of this drug for this condition.  A physician reviewed your appeal and determined that the plan is not required to cover Buprenorphine Hydrochloride.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a tiering exception request for Trelegy Ellipta Inhaler to treat and unknown 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 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.Trelegy Ellipta is a brand drug on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. There are no brand drugs of the same type on the lower tiers of the plans formulary to treat the same condition. Therefore, this drug is not eligible for a tiering exception.Our physician reviewer's opinion is that tiering exception criteria are not met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Qinlock 50-milligram tablet to treat gastrointestinal tumor of stomach. 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 documentation provided addressed the plans coverage criteria, and those criteria were not satisfied. 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 formulary exception request for Xeljanz 10 milligram tablets prescribed for Crohns disease. The Part D 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.The submitted documentation indicates the prescriber ordered the requested drug for the enrollees noted condition. The Medicare approved compendia do not support the use of the drug at issue for the enrollees condition. As the drug was not prescribed for a medically accepted indication, coverage cannot be allowed.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the plan is not required to cover the requested drug.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride 5-milligram tablet to treat other specified disorders of bone density and structure, right thigh and other specified disorders of bone density and structure, left lower leg. 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 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 condition. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

At issue is Testosterone 1.62% gel prescribed for testicular hypofunction. The Part D plan denied your request.We received the case to perform 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 records submitted at the reconsideration level. The plan has prior authorization criteria that must be met for continuation of Testosterone 1.62% gel use. A total testosterone level from within the past 12 months has been submitted. Therefore, the prior authorization criteria has been met for continuation of the requested drug. A physician reviewed your appeal and determined that the plan is required to cover Testosterone 1.62% gel.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Vraylar 3 milligram capsules prescribed for depressed bipolar I disorder. The Part D plan denied the request for a tiering exception.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.This drug is included on Tier 5 of the plans formulary. This tier is identified as a Specialty Tier. The plan is not required to grant a tiering exception for drugs available on their Specialty Tier. Therefore, a tiering exception cannot be considered.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the plan is not required to grant the request for a tiering exception.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Xifaxan 550-milligram tablet to treat 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 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 asked your prescriber to send us a prescriber statement, a medically accepted indication (diagnosis), answers to prior authorization coverage criteria, and medical records. However, we did not receive the documentation.No medical records were provided by the prescriber to support a medically accepted indication (diagnosis). It could not be determined whether the requested drug was being prescribed for a medically accepted indication. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.