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

At issue is Amitriptyline Hydrochloride powder prescribed as part of a compound cream to treat an enrollee with spondylosis without myelopathy or radiculopathy, lumbosacral region. 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.Bulk powders do not satisfy the definition of a Part D drug. Only compounds that contain at least one ingredient that independently meets the definition of a Part D drug, and that do not contain any ingredients covered under Part B as prescribed and dispensed or administered, may be covered under Part D. The National Drug Code submitted for this drug is for Amitriptyline Hydrochloride in bulk powder form and therefore, 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 Flurbiprofen powder prescribed as part of a compound cream to treat an enrollee with spondylosis without myelopathy or radiculopathy, lumbosacral region. 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.Bulk powders do not satisfy the definition of a Part D drug. Only compounds that contain at least one ingredient that independently meets the definition of a Part D drug, and that do not contain any ingredients covered under Part B as prescribed and dispensed or administered, may be covered under Part D. The National Drug Code submitted for this drug is for Flurbiprofen in bulk powder form and therefore, 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 Gabapentin powder prescribed as part of a compound cream to treat an enrollee with spondylosis without myelopathy or radiculopathy, lumbosacral region. 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.Bulk powders do not satisfy the definition of a Part D drug. Only compounds that contain at least one ingredient that independently meets the definition of a Part D drug, and that do not contain any ingredients covered under Part B as prescribed and dispensed or administered, may be covered under Part D. The National Drug Code submitted for this drug is for Gabapentin in bulk powder form and therefore, 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 Lidocaine powder prescribed as part of a compound cream to treat an enrollee with spondylosis without myelopathy or radiculopathy, lumbosacral region. 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.Bulk powders do not satisfy the definition of a Part D drug. Only compounds that contain at least one ingredient that independently meets the definition of a Part D drug, and that do not contain any ingredients covered under Part B as prescribed and dispensed or administered, may be covered under Part D. The National Drug Code submitted for this drug is for Lidocaine in bulk powder form and therefore, 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 Prilocaine powder prescribed as part of a compound cream to treat an enrollee with spondylosis without myelopathy or radiculopathy, lumbosacral region. 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.Bulk powders do not satisfy the definition of a Part D drug. Only compounds that contain at least one ingredient that independently meets the definition of a Part D drug, and that do not contain any ingredients covered under Part B as prescribed and dispensed or administered, may be covered under Part D. The National Drug Code submitted for this drug is for Prilocaine in bulk powder form and therefore, 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 Nucala 100 milligram per milliliter auto injector to treat severe asthma with an eosinophilic phenotype. 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 Leflunomide 20 milligram tablets to treat polyoma virus (BK) viremia in a kidney transplant patient. 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 Brinzolamide 10 percent eye drops to treat primary open angle glaucoma. 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 Lansoprazole oral disintergrating tablet 30 milligram tablets to treat dysphagia and malignant neoplasm of esophagus, 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. 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 Spravato 56 milligram nasal spray to treat major depressive disorder. 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 record shows Spravato is being prescribed for treatment of depression. Medicare law specifically excludes coverage for any drug for which payment would be available under Medicare Parts A or B for that individual. Medicare Part B pays for services and supplies incident to the service of a physician (or other practitioner). Spravato is a type of drug that must be administered under direct observation of a health care provider and monitored for at least two hours after administration. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has mandated a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy for Spravato. This strategy requires that Spravato be only dispensed and administered to patients in a medically supervised healthcare setting that monitors the enrollee. Based on the information provided, we determined the drug may be eligible for coverage under Part B under Medicare rules. Please consider submitting this request to Medicare Part B. The decision does not address medical necessity of the drug. It only indicates that payment cannot be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Sodium Chloride 1 gram 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.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 a tiering exception request for Pomalyst to treat multiple myeloma, not having achieved remission. 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.This drug is being provided by the plan at the cost sharing level of the Specialty tier. Specialty tier drugs are not available for a tiering exception per Medicare rules. Please note, this reconsideration decision was based on the plans 2023 coverage criteria.A physician reviewer determined that tiering exception criteria are not met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Tamsulosin Hydrochloride 0.4 milligram capsule. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the submitted documentation to perform an independent and de novo review.We requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested a medically accepted indication, medical records, explanation of duplicate therapy or if one drug will be discontinued, and a prescriber statement to support that the enrollee has satisfied the plans prior authorization coverage criteria. However, we did not receive the requested information.No documentation was provided by the prescriber. We requested information from the prescriber but no information was received. 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 Testosterone 20.25 milligrams per actuation (1.62 percent) gel to treat an unknown condition. The case was auto-forwarded by the Part D 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 a medically accepted indication, medical records, and a prescriber statement to support that the enrollee has satisfied the plans prior authorization coverage criteria. However, we did not receive the requested information.No documentation was provided by the prescriber. We requested information from the prescriber but no information was received. 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 Levemir Flextouch 100 unit per milliliter pen. 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 a diagnosis and why the drug was required. We also requested the prescriber to address the formulary alternatives and state why they would not be sufficient. However, we did not receive the requested information. We are unable to determine if the drug requested was prescribed for a medically accepted indication and if this non-formulary drug is required instead of the drugs listed on the plans formulary.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 Clorazepate Dipotassium 15 milligram tablet to treat anxiety. 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 a medically accepted indication, medical records, and a prescriber statement to support that the enrollee has satisfied the plans prior authorization coverage criteria. We received additional documentation and included it in the review.The plan has prior authorization requirements for this drug. These requirements must be met before coverage can be extended. The submitted documentation does not satisfy the plans coverage criteria.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is reimbursement for Plenity 0.75 gram capsule to promote weight loss. 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.Sexual/erectile dysfunction drugs prescribed to treat sexual/erectile dysfunction or other diagnoses for which the drug is not Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved, 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 Testosterone Enanthate 200 milligrams per milliliter prescribed for 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. Medicare records show the enrollee was not enrolled with the Part D plan on date of purchase May 19, 2022. Therefore, we determined that the plan is not required to provide coverage or reimbursement for the requested drug.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Acetaminophen/Codeine #3 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 a discount card was applied to the purchase of the requested drug. Discount cards are intended for out-of-pocket paying consumers and may not be used with commercial health plans or any federal or state funded health care program, such as Medicare or Medicaid. When the enrollees benefit card was used, the enrollee acknowledged and agreed that the discount program will be treated as the primary payor with respect to the medications that are purchased through the discount program. Therefore, the plan is not required to cover or provide reimbursement for the requested drug.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Furosemide 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 a discount card was applied to the purchase of the requested drug. Discount cards are intended for out-of-pocket paying consumers and may not be used with commercial health plans or any federal or state funded health care program, such as Medicare or Medicaid. When the enrollees benefit card was used, the enrollee acknowledged and agreed that the discount program will be treated as the primary payor with respect to the medications that are purchased through the discount program. Therefore, the plan is not required to cover or provide reimbursement for the requested drug.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Metformin Hydrochloride 500 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 a discount card was applied to the purchase of the requested drug. Discount cards are intended for out-of-pocket paying consumers and may not be used with commercial health plans or any federal or state funded health care program, such as Medicare or Medicaid. When the enrollees benefit card was used, the enrollee acknowledged and agreed that the discount program will be treated as the primary payor with respect to the medications that are purchased through the discount program. Therefore, the plan is not required to cover or provide reimbursement for the requested drug.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Testosterone Enanthate 200 milligrams per milliliter 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 a discount card was applied to the purchase of the requested drug. Discount cards are intended for out-of-pocket paying consumers and may not be used with commercial health plans or any federal or state funded health care program, such as Medicare or Medicaid. When the enrollees benefit card was used, the enrollee acknowledged and agreed that the discount program will be treated as the primary payor with respect to the medications that are purchased through the discount program. Therefore, the plan is not required to cover or provide reimbursement for the requested drug.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is reimbursement of Herpes Zoster Vaccine (HZV) and the administration fee, as prescribed for vaccination. The Part D plan auto-forwarded 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 submitted documentation shows the enrollee was administered the requested drug for vaccination in the prescriber's office. The plans 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 by the enrollee, and a physician's statement including the prescriber's National Provider Identifier (NPI) number and National Drug Code (NDC) of the requested vaccine was not provided. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Tetanus, Diphtheria, and Acellular Pertussis (TDAP) vaccine and the administration fee, as prescribed for vaccination. The Part D plan auto-forwarded 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 submitted documentation shows the enrollee was administered the requested drug for vaccination in the prescriber's office. The plans 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 by the enrollee, and a physician's statement including the prescriber's National Provider Identifier (NPI) number and National Drug Code (NDC) of the requested vaccine was not provided. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria have not been met.