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

At issue is Lidocaine 10 milligram per millilitersolution prescribed to treat the enrollee's condition. 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. The submitted documentation shows the enrollee received Lidocaine as a self-administered drug in the hospital. According to the plan's Evidence of Coverage, if the enrollee pays the full cost of a prescription, the enrollee may submit a request for reimbursement with proof of payment to ask the plan to pay its share of the cost. The enrollee provided a hospital statement including the amount charged for the self-administered drug. However, the enrollees proof of payment in the form of a receipt was not provided. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Ofloxacin 0.3 percent drops prescribed to treat the enrollee's condition. 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. The submitted documentation shows the enrollee received Ofloxacin as a self-administered drug in the hospital. According to the plan's Evidence of Coverage, if the enrollee pays the full cost of a prescription, the enrollee may submit a request for reimbursement with proof of payment to ask the plan to pay its share of the cost. The enrollee provided a hospital statement including the amount charged for the self-administered drug. However, the enrollees proof of payment in the form of a receipt was not provided. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Phenylephrine 2.5 percent drops prescribed to treat the enrollee's condition. 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. The submitted documentation shows the enrollee received Phenylephrine as a self-administered drug in the hospital. According to the plan's Evidence of Coverage, if the enrollee pays the full cost of a prescription, the enrollee may submit a request for reimbursement with proof of payment to ask the plan to pay its share of the cost. The enrollee provided a hospital statement including the amount charged for the self-administered drug. However, the enrollees proof of payment in the form of a receipt was not provided. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Tetracaine 0.5 percent drops prescribed to treat the enrollee's condition. 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. The submitted documentation shows the enrollee received Tetracaine as a self-administered drug in the hospital. According to the plan's Evidence of Coverage, if the enrollee pays the full cost of a prescription, the enrollee may submit a request for reimbursement with proof of payment to ask the plan to pay its share of the cost. The enrollee provided a hospital statement including the amount charged for the self-administered drug. However, the enrollees proof of payment in the form of a receipt was not provided. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is reimbursement for Dextroamphetamine/Amphetamine 10 milligram tablets, 180 tablets per 30 days. The case was auto-forwarded by the plan.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 plan approved a quantity limit for Dextroamphetamine/Amphetamine 10 milligram tablets of 540 tablets per 90 days. The enrollee indicates that payment was made for 180 tablets per 30 on October 3, 2023. However, there is missing information needed to consider the request. The receipt submitted is not considered valid because the price of the drug is hand written on the receipt and is illegible as to the quantity. Additionally, the required information should include the plans Prescription Drug Claim form including the National Drug Code (NDC) number of the requested drug, the prescribing physicians name, address and National Provider Identifier (NPI) number and date of purchase. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria are not met and the plan is not required to reimburse you for the cost of the drug.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Hydrocodone/Acetaminophen 10/325 milligram tablet prescribed for an unknown diagnosis. 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 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. This required a safety edit exception case. Your plan's formulary has a restriction on this drug. The following requirement(s) were not met due to no information being provided or additional information not being provided.The submitted documentation shows the enrollee requested the Part D plan to provide reimbursement for the requested drug purchased from an in-network pharmacy. However, there is a safety edit exception case for this medication which was denied. Reimbursement request denied for safety edit (7 day opioid naive). Therefore, we determined that the plan is not required to reimburse the enrollee without the required information.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Eliquis 2.5 milligram tablet. The Part D plan 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 available documentation.The plan submitted documentation that shows the claim for the requested drug was approved and copayment was charged correctly to the enrollee at the point of sale. The plans 2023 Evidence of Coverage indicates reimbursement is calculated based on the total cost of the drug, minus the required copayment/coinsurance amount, and minus the difference between what the plan approves for the drug and what the pharmacy charges. We determined this drug was paid correctly and no further reimbursement is required by the plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Eliquis 5 milligram tablet. The Part D plan 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 available documentation.The plan submitted documentation that shows the claim for the requested drug was approved and copayment was charged correctly to the enrollee at the point of sale. The plans 2023 Evidence of Coverage indicates reimbursement is calculated based on the total cost of the drug, minus the required copayment/coinsurance amount, and minus the difference between what the plan approves for the drug and what the pharmacy charges. We determined this drug was paid correctly and no further reimbursement is required by the plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a reimbursement request for Oxycodone/Acetaminophen 10/325 milligram tablet to treat the enrollees condition. The Part D plan auto forwarded the case to us for review.We received a 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 a claim for reimbursement was processed for the requested drug with the same prescription fill date. The claim was processed correctly. The plans Evidence of Coverage indicates reimbursement is calculated based on the total cost of the drug, minus the required copayment/coinsurance amount, and minus the difference between the plans approved amount for the drug and what the pharmacy charges. We determined no further reimbursement is required by the plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is reimbursement for Ondansetron 4 milligram per 2 milliliter injection. 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 provided claim information indicating the drug at issue was dispensed at a pharmacy not in the plans network on the date the prescription was filled. In these instances, the enrollee may be responsible for paying the difference between what he/she pays for the drug at the out of network pharmacy and the cost that the plan would cover at an in network pharmacy. The documentation does not support an extreme emergency that would require the drug be immediately supplied and the drug could have been received from a network pharmacy. Therefore, we determined that the plan is not required to provide reimbursement for the requested drug.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is reimbursement for Pantoprazole 40 milligram. 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 provided claim information indicating the drug at issue was dispensed at a pharmacy not in the plans network on the date the prescription was filled. In these instances, the enrollee may be responsible for paying the difference between what he/she pays for the drug at the out of network pharmacy and the cost that the plan would cover at an in network pharmacy. The documentation does not support an extreme emergency that would require the drug be immediately supplied and the drug could have been received from a network pharmacy. Therefore, we determined that the plan is not required to provide reimbursement for the requested drug.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Forteo 600 microgram per 2.4 milliliter solution to treat age-related osteoporosis without current pathological fracture. 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 available documentation.The requested drug is not on the plans formulary. To grant an exception for a drug that is not on the plans formulary, alternative formulary drugs must have been tried and failed or must be deemed contraindicated. In this case, the prescriber has not provided patient-specific clinical rationale as to why the alternative drugs on the plans formulary to treat the enrollees condition would likely not be as effective as the requested drug and/or would likely cause adverse reactions or other harm. Additionally, the submitted documentation does not support that the enrollee has tried and failed all of the formulary alternative drugs. Therefore, the formulary exception requirements have not been met.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 Advair Hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) 45 microgram/21 microgram per actuation inhalation aerosol liquid to treat severe persistent asthma uncomplicated. The Part D plan 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 available documentation.The requested drug is not on the plans formulary. To grant an exception for a drug that is not on the plans formulary, alternative formulary drugs must have been tried and failed or must be deemed contraindicated. In this case, the prescriber has not provided patient-specific clinical rationale as to why the alternative drugs on the plans formulary to treat the enrollees condition would likely not be as effective as the requested drug and/or would likely cause adverse reactions or other harm. Additionally, the submitted documentation does not support that the enrollee has tried and failed all of the formulary alternative drugs. Therefore, the formulary exception requirements have not been met.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 Teriparatide 20 microgram per dose (620 microgram per 2.48 milliliter) pen injector to treat age-related osteoporosis. The Part D plan 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 available documentation.During this review, we requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to address the plans prior authorization requirements for coverage of the drug. We received additional documentation and included it in the review. The plan has prior authorization requirements for this drug that must be met before coverage will be provided. The submitted documentation does not support that all of the plans requirements for coverage have been satisfied. Furthermore, the documentation does not support the medical necessity for an exception to the plans prior authorization requirements.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 Wegovy 0.25 milligram per 0.5 milliliter solution auto injector to treat morbid obesity. 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 available documentation.Drugs prescribed to treat obesity and/or to promote weight loss are excluded from the Part D coverage. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from Medicare Part D coverage.This decision does not address the medical necessity 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 a tiering exception request for Eliquis 5 milligram tablet to treat the enrollee's condition. The Part D plan 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 available documentation.Eliquis is a brand drug on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. There are no brand drugs of the same type to treat the same condition on the lower tiers of the plans formulary. If there are no drugs of the same type on a lower tier, the drug is not eligible for a tiering exception.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for a tiering exception.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a tiering exception request for Farxiga 10 milligram tablet to treat the enrollee's condition. The Part D plan 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 available documentation.Farxiga is a brand drug on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. There are no brand drugs of the same type to treat the same condition on the lower tiers of the plans formulary. If there are no drugs of the same type on a lower tier, the drug is not eligible for a tiering exception.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for a tiering exception.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Qulipta 60 milligram tablet to treat chronic migraine without aura, not intractable, without status migrainosus. The Part D plan 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 available documentation.The plan has prior authorization requirements for this drug that must be met before coverage will be provided. The submitted documentation does not support that all of the plans requirements for coverage have been satisfied. Furthermore, the documentation does not support the medical necessity for an exception to the plans prior authorization requirements.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 Pregabalin 50 milligram capsule to treat zoster without complications. 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 available documentation.In order for a drug to be covered by Medicare Part D, it must be prescribed for a medically accepted indication outlined in the Medicare approved compendia. 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. 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 Lidocaine 5 percent patch to treat chronic back and shoulder pain. 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 available documentation. The plan has prior authorization requirements for this drug that must be met before coverage will be provided. The submitted documentation does not support that all of the plans requirements for coverage have been satisfied. Furthermore, the documentation does not support the medical necessity for an exception to the plans prior authorization requirements. 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 Forteo 600 microgram per 2.4 milliliter solution to treat osteoporosis, post-menopausal. 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 available documentation. The plan has prior authorization requirements for this drug that must be met before coverage will be provided. The submitted documentation does not support that all of the plans requirements for coverage have been satisfied. Furthermore, the documentation does not support the medical necessity for an exception to the plans prior authorization requirements. 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 Lotemax 0.5 percent opthalmic ointment to treat punctate keratitis, other keratoconjunctivitis. 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 available documentation. 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. 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: Favorable

At issue is coverage for Abiraterone Acetate 250 milligram tablet to treat metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer. 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 available documentation.The plan has prior authorization requirements for this drug that must be met before coverage will be provided. The submitted documentation supports that all of the plans requirements for coverage have been satisfied. Specifically, the patient has a newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer which is hormone sensitive. The request is for Abiraterone (250 milligram tablets, 4 tablets daily). Patient has failed Casodex and the provider will give Abiraterone Acetate with Lupron and Prednisone. Per the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the use of Abiraterone Acetate in the setting of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer is a Category 1 recommendation. Of note, Abiraterone Acetate is on the plans 2023 formulary. Therefore, the plans prior authorization requirements have been met and 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 Cyclobenzaprine bulk powder compounded drug prescribed to treat complex regional pain syndrome. The Part D plan denied/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. 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 Diclofenac bulk powder compounded drug prescribed to treat complex regional pain syndrome. The Part D plan denied/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. 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.