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

At issue is Maxalt 10-milligram tablets to treat migraine headaches. 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, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The requested drug is not on the plans formulary. In order to grant an exception for a drug not on the plans formulary, alternative formulary drugs must have been tried, failed, or deemed contraindicated. In this case, the documentation does not support why the formulary alternatives, required by the plan would likely not be as effective for this diagnosis, and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Otezla 30-milligram tablet to treat plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. 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 Freestyle Libre Sensors. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed 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 Repatha Sureclick 140 milligram/milliliter solution autoinjector to treat hyperlipidemia in an enrollee with atherosclerotic cardiovascular 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 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 Butalbital Acetaminophen Caffeine 50-325-40-milligram capsule to treat migraine headaches. 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 formulary alternatives were tried and failed or were contraindicated. 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.The request for a formulary exception cannot be reviewed because the requested drug was not 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 OxyContin CR 60-milligram abuse deterrent 12-hour tablet to treat chronic pain due to lumbar radiculopathy. 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.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 contraindicated. The prescriber did not respond to the request.OxyContin CR 60-milligram abuse deterrent 12-hour tablet is not on the plans formulary. In order to grant an exception for a drug not on the plans formulary, all alternative formulary drugs must have been tried and 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 reactions 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 Fentanyl 72 hour patch 75-microgram per hour to treat spinal stenosis of lumbar region cervical facet syndrome and impingement syndrome of left shoulder. 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.In addition, Fentanyl is a generic drug on Tier 2 of the plans formulary. There are no generic drugs of the same type on the lower tiers of the plans formulary to treat the same diagnosis. Therefore, this drug is not eligible for a tiering exception.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. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.We requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support the enrollee has satisfied the plans prior authorization coverage criteria. However, we did not receive the requested information.At reconsideration, multiple diagnoses were given. However, no documentation was provided by the prescriber to support these diagnoses. We requested information from the prescriber, but no information was received. We are not able to determine whether the requested drug was prescribed for a medically accepted indication. Therefore, the 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: Unfavorable

At issue is a tiering exception request for Tadalafil 5-milligram tablet  to treat the 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 requested information.Tadalafil is a generic drug on Tier 3 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 Repatha 140-milligrams per milliliter solution pre-filled syringe to treat hyperlipidemia. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The requested drug is not on the plans formulary. In order to grant an exception for a drug not on the plans formulary, alternative formulary drugs must have been tried, failed, or deemed contraindicated. In this case, the documentation does not support why the formulary alternatives, required by the plan would likely not be as effective for this diagnosis, and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Ipratropium Bromide 0.02-percent solution to treat an unknown diagnosis/condition. The case was auto-forwarded by the plan.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.We requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records to support the diagnosis related to the requested drug. We also 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.No medical documentation has been provided to support a diagnosis related to the requested drug. We are not able to determine whether the requested drug has met the criteria for a medically acceptable indication per the approved Medicare compendia. 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: Unfavorable

At issue is Repatha Sureclick 140-milligrams/milliliter Pen-Injector to treat hyperlipidemia in an enrollee with atherosclerotic cardiovascular heart 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 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 a tiering exception request for Eliquis 5-milligram tablet for anticoagulation in an enrollee with a primary hypercoagulable state. 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.Eliquis 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. Therefore, this drug is not eligible for a tiering exception.A physician reviewer determined that the tiering exception criteria are not met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Shingrix kit. 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 quantity prescribed was medically necessary for the enrollee. However, we did not receive the requested information.The plan limits the amount of Shingrix to 2 doses per lifetime. 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 Forteo 620-micrograms/2.48-milliliter pen injector to treat age related osteoporosis without current pathological fracture. 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 Viibryd 20-milligram tablet to treat anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the submitted documentation to perform an independent and de novo review.The initial diagnosis submitted on 1/20/2022 was other specified anxiety disorder.  On 2/1/2022, the prescriber changed the diagnosis to major depressive disorder. Relevant medical records were requested. The submitted documentation does not include medical records to support the 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: Favorable

At issue is Amlodipine 5-milligram tablet prescribed for unknown 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. The submitted documentation shows the enrollee received Amlodipine 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, proof of payment, and the correct National Drug Code (NDC) for the self-administered drug. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria have been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

At issue is Atenolol 50-milligram tablet prescribed for unknown 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. The submitted documentation shows the enrollee received Atenolol 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, proof of payment, and the correct National Drug Code (NDC) for the self-administered drug. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria have been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

At issue is Atorvastatin 20-milligram tablet prescribed for unknown 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. The submitted documentation shows the enrollee received Atorvastatin 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, proof of payment, and the correct National Drug Code (NDC) for the self-administered drug. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria have been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

At issue is Fluticasone Vilanterol 200-25-microgram inhaler prescribed for unknown 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. The submitted documentation shows the enrollee received Fluticasone-Vilanterol 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, proof of payment, and the correct National Drug Code (NDC) for the self-administered drug. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria have been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

At issue is Montelukast 10-milligram tablet prescribed for unknown 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. The submitted documentation shows the enrollee received Montelukast 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, proof of payment, and the correct National Drug Code (NDC) for the self-administered drug. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria have been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

At issue is Neomycin-Polymyxin-Hydrocortisone 3.5-10,000-1-milligram/milliliter drops prescribed for unknown 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. The submitted documentation shows the enrollee received Neomycin-Polymyxin-Hydrocortisone drops 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, proof of payment, and the correct National Drug Code (NDC) for the self-administered drug. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria have been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

At issue is Valsartan 160-milligram tablet prescribed for unknown 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. The submitted documentation shows the enrollee received Valsartan 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, proof of payment, and the correct National Drug Code (NDC) for the self-administered drug. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria have been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Acetaminophen 325-milligram tablet prescribed for 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, 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.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Esomeprazole Magnesium 40-milligram delayed release capsule to treat gastroesophageal reflux 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 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 Armour Thyroid 60-milligram tablet to treat the enrollee's 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, 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. According to the compendia, This drug has not been found by the  FDA to be safe and effective, and the drug product labeling has not been approved by the FDA. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from coverage.