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

At issue is Shingrix 50 microgram-0.5 milliliter kit prescribed for vaccination. The case was auto-forwarded by the plan.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The enrollee is requesting reimbursement for the vaccine obtained and administered in the physicians office. However, there is missing information needed to consider the request. The submitted physician's statement and enrollee receipt are not legible copies. It cannot be determined if the National Drug Code (NDC) of the requested drug and the prescribing physicians name, address and National Provider Identifier (NPI) number was provided. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

At issue is Oxycodone-Acetaminophen 10-325 milligram tablet prescribed for diagnosis not provided. 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 submitted documentation shows the enrollee filled a prescription for the requested drug at a network pharmacy. The plans 2022 Evidence of Coverage states, if the enrollee pays the full cost of a prescription, then they may submit a request for reimbursement with proof of payment to ask the plan to pay its share of the cost. In this case, proof of payment in the form of a receipt showing the amount that was paid for the drug was provided. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria are met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Adacel Tetanus Diphtheria Pertussis 2-2.5-5 milligram per 0.5 milliliter vial prescribed for vaccination. The case was auto-forwarded by the plan.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The enrollee is requesting reimbursement for the vaccine obtained and administered in the physicians office. However, there is missing information needed to consider the request. The submitted physician's statement and enrollee receipt are not legible copies. It cannot be determined if the National Drug Code (NDC) of the requested drug and the prescribing physicians name, address and National Provider Identifier (NPI) number was provided. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Myrbetriq ER (Extended-Release) 50 milligram tablets (60 tablets per 30 days) to treat mixed incontinence. 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 submitted documentation supports the drug at issue was prescribed for the enrollee's noted diagnosis. The Medicare approved compendia contain a citation to support the use of the drug at issue for this diagnosis. The plan limits the amount of Myrbetriq ER to 30 tablets per 30 days. The Medicare approved compendia, DrugDex, indicates the maximum approved daily dosage for the drug at issue for the noted diagnosis is 50 milligrams per day. 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 Drisdol 1.25-milligram capsule to treat an unspecified diagnosis. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.Drugs prescribed for use as vitamins and minerals are excluded from coverage under Medicare Part D. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Mesalamine DR (Delayed-Release) 1.2 gram tablets to treat indeterminate colitis. 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. 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 Kineret 100-milligram/0.67-milligram syringe to treat 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.At reconsideration, the diagnosis of pseudogout is given and medical records are submitted to support this diagnosis. However, 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 Butalbital-Acetaminophen-Caffeine-Codeine 50-325-40-30-milligram capsule to treat migraine headaches and other headache syndrome. The Part D plan approved a formulary exception request but denied due to a safety edit. 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 prescriber indicates the enrollee is no longer taking the oxycodone medication but did not address the use of the prescribed opioid and use of a benzodiazepine concurrently. The plan has Drug Utilization Review criteria that must be met before coverage can be extended. The submitted documentation does not satisfy the plans coverage criteria. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for coverage under Part D drug benefits.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 Xtampza ER (Extended-Release) 9 milligram capsules 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 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 Bepostatine Besilate 1.5 percent ophthalmic solution to treat allergic conjunctivitis. 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 Xeljanx 5-milligram tablet to treat lichen planopilaris. 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. 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 Crestor 20 milligram tablets 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 Zerbaxa 1 gram-0.5 gram solution to treat chronic osteomyelitis. 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. 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 Clindamycin Phosphate 1 percent gel to treat cutaneous abscess of groin due to methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus infection. 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. 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 Eravacycline 136-milligram intravenous solution. 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. Based on the information provided, we determined the drug may be eligible for coverage under Part B under Medicare rules.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 Buprenorphine Hydrochloride 2-milligram sublingual tablet for pain management. 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. 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 Repatha Sureclick 140 milligram per milliliter injection solution to treat hyperlipidemia and 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 biologic is not on the plans formulary. In order to grant an exception for a biologic 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 biologic is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Risedronate Sodium 35 milligram tablets to treat osteoporosis. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The 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 Omnipod Classic Pods to treat type I 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 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 Mesalamine 1.2 gram delayed release tablet to treat rectal prolapse, collagenous colitis, and diarrhea, unspecified. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.At reconsideration, the diagnosis of microscopic/lymphocytic colitis is given. However, the use of the requested drug to treat the provided diagnosis is an off-label use. The Medicare approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for the treatment of this diagnosis. Therefore, the requested drug(s) is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a tiering exception request for Xarelto 20-milligram tablets to treat 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, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.Xarelto 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 diagnosis. 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 Pneumovax 23 syringe prescribed for pneumonia vaccination. The case was auto-forwarded by the plan.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. The submitted documentation shows the enrollee received the requested vaccine at their prescribers office. Based on the information provided, we determined the drug may be eligible for coverage under Medicare Part B. A drug that is covered under Part B is not eligible for coverage under Part D. Therefore, the Part D plan is not required to cover or provide reimbursement for the requested vaccine.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Zubsolv 1.4/0.36-milligram sublingual tablet. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.We requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support a diagnosis, reason why the drug is required, and that all formulary alternatives were tried and failed or were contraindicated. We received additional documentation and included it in the review.At reconsideration, a diagnosis code of F11.20, opioid dependence, was submitted but no medical records were submitted to support the diagnosis as requested. 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 Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen 10 milligram-325 milligram tablets 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.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 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 Methadone 10 milligram tablets 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.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 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 Dupixent 300 milligram per 2 milliliter injection solution to treat bullous pemphigoid. 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 requested biologic is not on the plans formulary. In order to grant an exception for a biologic 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 biologic is not eligible for Part D coverage.