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

At issue is coverage for Arikayce 590 milligram per 8.4 milliliter inhalation suspension, to be used in combination with Azithromycin, Rifampin and Ethambutol, to treat Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC) lung disease in an enrollee who has not been on a minimum of 6 consecutive months of a multidrug background regimen therapy. 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, including the case file from the plan and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The use of the requested drug to treat the noted condition 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. As outlined in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) product label, ARIKAYCE [(amikacin liposome inhalation suspension), for oral inhalation use] is an aminoglycoside antibacterial indicated in adults who have limited or no alternative treatment options, for the treatment of Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC) lung disease as part of a combination antibacterial drug regimen in patients who do not achieve negative sputum cultures after a minimum of 6 consecutive months of a multidrug background regimen therapy. As the available documentation does not indicate that the enrollee has been on a minimum of 6 consecutive months of a multidrug background regimen therapy, the requested drug is being prescribed for a non-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 coverage for Deferasirox 180 milligram tablet to treat chronic iron overload due to blood transfusions. The Part D plan denied the request for coverage because the following prior authorization requirement was not met: documentation of serum ferritin levels consistently (defined as at least 2 lab values in the previous 3 months prior to starting therapy) greater than l000 micrograms per liter (mcg/L).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 that must be met before coverage can be approved. The prescriber statement and medical records submitted at reconsideration support that all of the plans requirements for coverage have been met. The documentation supports that the enrollee has been on Deferasirox therapy since June 16, 2022. As such, this is not a request for initial therapy. If this was a request for initial therapy, the enrollee would meet the initial requirements, as the documentation supports that the drug is being used for a medically accepted indication outlined in the Medicare approved compendia; the drug has been prescribed in consultation with a hematologist; the enrollee is 2 years of age or older; and the submitted laboratory results show that the enrollee had serum ferritin levels consistently greater than l000 mcg/L (2 lab values within 3 months) prior to starting Deferasirox therapy on June 16, 2022.The newly submitted documentation also supports that the enrollee meets the plans requirements for renewal, which are the drug is being used to treat the medically accepted indication, chronic iron overload due to blood transfusions, and the laboratory results show that the enrollee has had at least 2 serum ferritin levels in the previous three months greater than 500 mcg/L. These results include a serum ferritin level of 888.1 mcg/L on November 14, 2022, and a serum ferritin level of 805.0 mcg/L on December 12, 2022. As such, coverage for the drug is supported.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 Nurtec 75 milligram oral disintegrating tablet to treat acute 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.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 a tiering exception request for Xarelto 15 milligram tablet to treat left leg deep vein thrombosis in an enrollee with an elevated D-dimer. 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.Xarelto 15 milligram tablet is a brand drug on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. There are no brand drugs of the same type to treat the noted condition on the lower tiers of the plans formulary. If there are no brand drugs of the same type on a lower tier, the drug is not eligible for a tiering exception. A physician reviewer determined that tiering exception criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Testosterone Cypionate 200 milligram per milliliter solution to treat hypogonadotropic hypogonadism. 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 Novolin R Flexpen 100 units per milliliter to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus with other specified complication. 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 Stelara 90 milligram per milliliter syringe to treat 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.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 Dilantin 100 milligram capsule to treat seizures. 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.Dilantin 100 milligram capsule 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 Xiaflex 0.9 milligram 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, including the case file from the plan, 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 Thiothixene 5 milligram capsule to treat Tourettes 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 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 coverage for Dronabinol 5 milligram capsule to treat unspecified gastrointestinal issues. The Part D plan denied the request for coverage and then auto-forwarded the case to us for review We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted.The use of the requested drug to treat the noted condition is an off-label use. The Medicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug for the treatment of unspecified gastrointestinal issues. Therefore, the drug is being prescribed for a non-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 Alprazolam 0.25 milligram tablet to treat anxiety. 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, including the case file from the plan and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.During this review, we requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support that the quantity prescribed was medically necessary for the enrollee. However, we did not receive the requested information.The prescriber has requested a 60-day supply of the requested drug. However, the requested drug is a benzodiazepine. Benzodiazepines are limited to a recurring 30-day supply by the plan. The submitted documentation does not support the medical necessity for an exception to the plans quantity limit. A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug at the requested amount is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

At issue is Rabavert vial kit prescribed as prophylaxis for traveling. The Part D plan denied the reimbursement 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 the vaccine at the prescriber's office. The plans Evidence of Coverage states that if an 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 submitted information includes a receipt from the prescriber's office indicating full payment was made for the vaccine and administration fee. The provided information included a valid National Drug Code (NDC) and the prescriber's complete information including the National Provider Identifier (NPI) number. Therefore, we determined the plan is required to provide reimbursement based on the enrollee's cost share stage on the date of vaccination.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Botox 200 unit vial prescribed to treat extreme 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. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The plan submitted documentation that shows the enrollee was in the deductible stage for part of the cost for the drug and entered the initial stage for the remaining amount. The enrollee is responsible for the full cost of covered drugs until the deductible amount is satisfied. After the deductible was met, the plan calculated reimbursement based on the total cost of the drug, minus the required copayment amount, and minus the difference between what the plan normally pays for the drug and what the pharmacy charges. We determined the Botox was paid correctly and no further reimbursement is required by the plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Diphenhydramine Hydrochloride. 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, 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 and not eligible for reimbursement.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Doxycylcine Hyclate compound prescribed to treat an unspecified diagnosis. 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.Drugs that fall into the category of bulk powders do not meet the definition of a Part D drug. The requested drug is considered a bulk powder and is excluded from coverage under Part D and not eligible for reimbursement. 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 Hydrocortisone Acetate compound prescribed to treat an unspecified diagnosis. 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.Drugs that fall into the category of bulk powders do not meet the definition of a Part D drug. The requested drug is considered a bulk powder and is excluded from coverage under Part D and not eligible for reimbursement. 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 Azelaic Acid compound flakes prescribed to treat rosacea. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.Drugs that fall into the category of bulk products do not meet the definition of a Part D drug. The requested drug is considered a bulk product and is excluded from coverage under Part D and not eligible for reimbursement. 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 Ethyl Alcohol 95 percent solution prescribed to treat rosacea. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.Drugs that fall into the category of bulk products do not meet the definition of a Part D drug. The requested drug is considered a bulk product and is excluded from coverage under Part D and not eligible for reimbursement. 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 Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) compound cream prescribed to treat rosacea. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.Drugs that fall into the category of bulk products do not meet the definition of a Part D drug. The requested drug is considered a bulk product and is excluded from coverage under Part D and not eligible for reimbursement. This decision does not address the medical necessity or appropriateness of the requested drug. It only establishes if payment can be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Metronidazole compound powder prescribed to treat rosacea. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.Drugs that fall into the category of bulk powders do not meet the definition of a Part D drug. The requested drug is considered a bulk powder and is excluded from coverage under Part D and not eligible for reimbursement. 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 Progesterone compound powder prescribed to treat rosacea. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.Drugs that fall into the category of bulk powders do not meet the definition of a Part D drug. The requested drug is considered a bulk powder and is excluded from coverage under Part D and not eligible for reimbursement. 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 Sterile Water. 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 and not eligible for reimbursement.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Vanicream compound cream. 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 and not eligible for reimbursement.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Estradiol compound powder prescribed to treat rosacea. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.Drugs that fall into the category of bulk powders do not meet the definition of a Part D drug. The requested drug is considered a bulk powder and is excluded from coverage under Part D and not eligible for reimbursement. 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 Glycerin liquid compound prescribed to treat rosacea. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.Drugs that fall into the category of bulk products do not meet the definition of a Part D drug. The requested drug is considered a bulk product and is excluded from coverage under Part D and not eligible for reimbursement. This decision does not address the medical necessity or appropriateness of the requested drug. It only establishes if payment can be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Ivermectin compound powder prescribed to treat rosacea. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.Drugs that fall into the category of bulk powders do not meet the definition of a Part D drug. The requested drug is considered a bulk powder and is excluded from coverage under Part D and not eligible for reimbursement. 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.