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

At issue is Nuplazid 34-milligram capsule to treat psychosis, dementia with Lewy Bodies, without evidence of Parkinsons disease. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The use of the requested drug to treat the provided diagnosis is an off-label use. The Medicare approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for the treatment of this condition. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Uribel Capsule to treat an unknown diagnosis. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.Non-Food and Drug Administration approved drugs are excluded from Medicare Part D coverage. Per the compendia, This drug has not been found by the United States Food and Drug Administration to be safe and effective, and the drug product labeling has not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from coverage.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 Reyvow 50 milligram tablets prescribed for migraine headaches. The Part D plan denied the request for a tiering exception.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted.Reyvow is a brand drug on Tier 4 of the plans formulary. There are no other drugs of the same type on the lower cost sharing tiers. Therefore, this drug is not eligible for a tiering exception.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the plan is not required to grant the request for a tiering exception.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Hydroxyzine Hydrochloride 50-milligram tablet to treat an unknown diagnosis. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.We asked your prescriber to send us a prescriber statement, a medically accepted indication (diagnosis), information showing that it will be safe for you to take this drug, answers to prior authorization coverage criteria, and medical records. However, we did not receive the documentation.No medical records were provided by the prescriber. It could not be determined whether the requested drug was being prescribed for a medically accepted indication. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Tacrolimus 0.03% ointment prescribed for amyopathic dermatomyositis. The Part D plan denied the request. We performed an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The submitted documentation indicates the prescriber ordered the drug at issue for the enrollees noted condition. The Medicare approved compendia do not support the use of the drug at issue for the enrollees condition. As the drug was not prescribed for a medically accepted indication, coverage cannot be allowed.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the plan is not required to cover the requested drug.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Cyproheptadine Hydrochloride 4-milligram tablet. At initial determination and redetermination the diagnosis of unspecified asthma, uncomplicated was given. 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.At reconsideration diagnoses of pruritus and rash and other nonspecified skin eruptions were given. No medical records were provided by the prescriber to support these diagnoses. It could not be determined whether the requested drug was being prescribed for medically accepted indications. Additionally, the use of the requested drug to treat the provided diagnoses are off-label uses. 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 Vardenafil 20 milligram tablets prescribed for erectile dysfunction. The Part D plan denied the request. We performed an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.We determined that the plan is not required to cover Vardenafil because it was prescribed for erectile dysfunction. Drugs prescribed for the treatment of sexual or erectile dysfunction are excluded from coverage. The plan does not offer supplemental (additional) coverage for this drug. If the enrollee purchased drugs that are excluded, the enrollee must pay for them. This decision does not address the medical necessity or appropriateness of the drug. It only establishes that payment cannot be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Aimovig 140 milligram/milliliter pen injector prescribed for migraine headaches for a tiering exception. The case was auto-forwarded by the plan.  We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.Aimovig is a biologic on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. There are no other biologics of the same type on the lower cost sharing tiers. Therefore, this biologic is not eligible for a tiering exception.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the plan is not required to grant the request for a tiering exception.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a quantity limit exception for Tramadol 100 milligram extended release tablets prescribed for chronic pain syndrome. The Part D plan denied the request.We performed an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The documentation indicates the drug at issue was prescribed for 60 tablets per 30 days. The plan allows 30 tablets within a rolling 23-day period or 90 tablets within a rolling 68-day period. The documentation submitted by the prescriber does not support the dosage is being titrated or that a higher strength dosage would be inappropriate. Therefore, a quantity limit exception cannot be granted and the amount approved by the plan is upheld.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Xifaxan 550-milligram tablet to treat lymphocytic colitis with diarrhea. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The use of the requested drug to treat the provided diagnosis is an off-label use. The Medicare approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for the treatment of this condition. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a prior authorization request for Aubagio 14 milligram tablets prescribed for relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis. The Part D plan denied coverage.We performed an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any records submitted at the reconsideration level. The submitted documentation does not indicate that the enrollee satisfies the plan's prior authorization coverage criteria.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Cabenuva Suspension to treat human immunodeficiency virus disease. The Part D plan denied the request. The requested drug is not on the plans formulary. 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.In order to grant an exception for a drug not on the plans formulary, alternative formulary drugs must have been tried, failed, or deemed contraindicated. In this case, the medical records do not support why other drugs on the plans formulary would not work for you.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Albuterol Sulfate 2.5-milligrams/3-milliliters to treat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read 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 record shows the Albuterol sulfate is being administered through a nebulizer in the home setting. Medicare Part B/Durable Medical Equipment may pay for supplies necessary for the effective use of durable medical equipment, including drugs and biologicals, which must be put directly into the equipment in order to achieve the therapeutic benefit of the durable medical equipment. We determined that the Part D plan is not required to cover the Albuterol sulfate. 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.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 Prolia 60 milligram/milliliter injection solution prescribed for age-related osteoporosis. The Part D plan denied the request. We performed an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The submitted documentation indicates the prescriber is purchasing the biologic at issue and is administering incident to a physician service. This is eligible for coverage under Part B. 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 Diclofenac Epolamine 1.3% Patch to treat strain of muscle, fascia and tendon of lower back, initial encounter. The Part D plan denied the request. The requested drug is not on the plans formulary. 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.In order to grant an exception for a drug not on the plans formulary, alternative formulary drugs must have been tried, failed, or deemed contraindicated. In this case, the medical records do not support why other drugs on the plans formulary would not work for you.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Lorazepam 1 milligram tablets prescribed for mood disorder. The Part D plan denied the request. We performed an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The submitted documentation indicates the prescriber originally ordered the drug at issue for insomnia. At redetermination, the prescriber indicated the diagnosis was entered incorrectly and should be unspecified mood disorder. On appeal, the prescriber indicated the diagnosis should be generalized anxiety disorder; however, there were no medical records submitted to support a change in diagnosis. The Medicare approved compendia do not support the use of the drug at issue for the enrollees condition. As the drug was not prescribed for a medically accepted indication, coverage cannot be allowed.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the plan is not required to cover the requested drug.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Megestrol Acetate 400 milligram/10 milliliter suspension prescribed for weight gain. The Part D plan denied the request. We performed an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.We determined that the plan is not required to cover Megestrol Acetate because it was prescribed for weight gain. Drugs to treat anorexia, weight loss, or weight gain are excluded from coverage. The plan does not offer supplemental (additional) coverage for this drug. If the enrollee purchased drugs that are excluded, the enrollee must pay for them. This decision does not address the medical necessity or appropriateness of the drug. It only establishes that payment cannot be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

At issue is Mavyret 100-40-milligram tablet to treat chronic viral hepatitis C. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The documentation satisfies the plans coverage criteria. A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Repatha Sureclick 140-milligrams/milliliter to treat hyperlipidemia, unspecified. The Part D plan denied the request. The requested drug is not on the plans formulary. 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.In order to grant an exception for a drug not on the plans formulary, alternative formulary drugs must have been tried, failed, or deemed contraindicated. In this case, the medical records do not support why other drugs on the plans formulary would not work for you.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

At issue is Lidocaine 5% patch prescribed for post-herpetic neuralgia. The Part D plan denied the request. We performed an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. The submitted documentation indicates the prescriber ordered the drug at issue for the enrollees noted condition. The prescriber submitted a prescriber statement to attest to the prescribed diagnosis. The plans prior authorization coverage criteria has been met. A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the plan is required to cover the requested drug.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Ipratropium/Albuterol Sulfate 0.5-3-milligrams/3-milliliters Ampule Nebulization. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. We also researched Medicare systems and reviewed the enrollment data available.The record shows the Ipratropium/Albuterol Sulfate is being administered through a nebulizer in the home setting. Medicare Part B/Durable Medical Equipment may pay for supplies necessary for the effective use of durable medical equipment, including drugs and biologicals, which must be put directly into the equipment in order to achieve the therapeutic benefit of the durable medical equipment. We determined that the Part D plan is not required to cover the Albuterol sulfate. 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.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 Novolog 70/30 FlexPen to treat Type 2 diabetes mellitus. The Part D plan denied the request. The requested drug is not on the plans formulary. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.We asked your prescriber to send us a prescriber statement, answers to off-formulary exception coverage criteria, and medical records. However, we did not receive the documentation.In order to grant an exception for a drug not on the plans formulary, alternative formulary drugs must have been tried, failed, or deemed contraindicated. In this case, the medical records do not support why other drugs on the plans formulary would not work for you.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a formulary exception request for Nurtec 75 milligram tablets prescribed for migraine headaches. The Part D plan denied the request. We performed an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. The submitted documentation did not indicate that all the formulary alternatives were tried and would be ineffective.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the plan is not required to cover Nurtec.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a prior authorization request for Vyndamax 61 milligram capsules prescribed for transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy. The Part D plan denied coverage.We performed an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any records submitted at the reconsideration level. The submitted documentation does not indicate that the enrollee satisfies the plan's prior authorization coverage criteria.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested biologic is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Testosterone 1.62% gel pump prescribed for fatigue due to low levels of testosterone in a male-female transgender patient on estrogen/progesterone hormone treatment. The Part D plan denied the request. We performed an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The submitted documentation indicates the prescriber ordered the drug at issue for the enrollees noted condition. The Medicare approved compendia do not support the use of the drug at issue for the enrollees condition. As the drug was not prescribed for a medically accepted indication, coverage cannot be allowed.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the plan is not required to cover the requested drug.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Eliquis 2.5 milligram tablets prescribed for atrial fibrillation. The Part D plan denied the request for a tiering exception.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.Eliquis is a brand drug on Tier 2 of the plans formulary. There are no other drugs of the same type on the lower cost sharing tiers. Therefore, this drug is not eligible for a tiering exception.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the plan is not required to grant the request for a tiering exception.