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

At issue is a tiering exception request for Flecainide Acetate 150-milligram tablets prescribed for the management of symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. 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.Flecainide Acetate is a generic drug on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. The prescriber has not addressed all drugs of the same type on the lower tiers of the plans formulary to treat the enrollees condition. The prescriber has not provided patient specific clinical rationale as to why each lower-tiered drug has been tried and failed, or is contraindicated. Therefore, the tiering exception criteria have not been met.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the plan is not required to cover the requested drug at a lower cost tier.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Austedo 6-milligram tablet to treat unspecified abnormal involuntary movements. 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 Trulicity 3-milligram per 0.5-milliliter pen injector prescribed 12 pens per 90 days to treat diabetes mellitus. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we 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 plan limits the amount of Trulicity to two pens per 29 days. The prescriber has not indicated that the number of doses of the requested drug allowed by the plan would likely be ineffective in treating the diagnosis or would be likely to cause harm. Therefore, an exception to the plans coverage criteria is not supported.  Also note that medical records were requested and were not provided.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 Xelpros 0.005 percent eye drop prescribed for diagnosis not provided. 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 for the enrollee 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.We determined that the plan is not required to reimburse you for the requested drug.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Tibsovo 250 milligram tablet to treat Isocitrate Dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) mutated anaplastic oligodendroglioma of frontal lobe, World Health Organization grade 3. 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. Medicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug as prescribed, for treatment of the noted diagnosis. There was no peer-reviewed, clinically relevant, medical literature from an approved journal submitted to support this appeal. Therefore, the requested drug is not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Repatha Sureclick 140-milligram per milliliter solution auto-injector to treat coronary disease. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The requested 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 Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride 10-milligram tablet to treat degenerative disc disease and system lupus erythematosus. 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: Favorable

At issue is Cuvitru 1-gram/5-milliliter solution to treat nonfamilial hypogammaglobulinemia. 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 a medically accepted indication. The office note of Feb 2021, explains the change in diagnosis to a Part D covered indication. Therefore, the requested drug(s) is eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D.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 Horizant 600-milligram extended release 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.A request was submitted to the prescriber to provide a diagnosis, to clarify the medical history, to address the non-formulary exception criteria, and to provide supporting medical records.  A reply from the prescriber was not received. Without a diagnosis, it cannot be established that the requested drug is being prescribed for a medically accepted indication. As such, the requested drug does not satisfy the definition of a Medicare Part D drug. A physician reviewed your appeal and determined that the plan is not required to cover the requested drug.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Zolpidem Tartrate 10-milligram tablets to treat insomnia. 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 plan has prior authorization requirements for this drug that must be met before coverage can be approved. The submitted documentation does not support that all of the plans requirements for coverage have 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 a tiering exception request for Rasagiline Mesylate 1-milligram tablet to treat 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 reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.Rasagiline Mesylate is a generic drug on Tier 4 of the plans formulary. The prescriber has not indicated if all alternatives required by the plan have been tried and failed, or why the plans lower tiered drugs would likely not be as effective as the requested drug. Therefore, this drug is not eligible for a tiering exception.A physician reviewer determined that tiering exception criteria are not met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Lantus Solostar 100 unit/milliliter pen injection 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 the enrollee received two pre-packaged boxes of the requested pens and was charged a $70 copay. The prescription was for 49 units therefore, the enrollee was provided with an additional pre-packaged 31 day supply to complete the prescribed amount of insulin. The enrollee requested an adjustment to the copay, or an additional pen be provided because less than the 30 day supply was received as a pre-packaged drug. Medicare rules state that certain drugs are excluded from an adjustment in copayment (antibiotics and pre-packaged drugs) and cannot be separated from the original packaging. The requested drug is a pre-packaged drug and therefore, excluded from an adjustment in the copay amount. We determined the requested drug was paid correctly and no further reimbursement is required by the plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is reimbursement for Beconase Aqueous (AQ) 42 micrograms (0.042-percent) nasal spray, suspension. 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 documentation shows the plan allowed an exception to the plans formulary for Beconase AQ, a brand name drug. The documentation also shows this drug was dispensed on September 1, 2021. According to the Evidence of Coverage, the plan paid its share of the cost for the requested drug and the remaining amount was your copayment for a non-preferred brand name drug at Tier 4. We have determined this drug was paid correctly and no further reimbursement is required by the plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Xifaxan 550-milligram tablet to treat diarrhea, unspecified. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.A request was submitted to the prescriber to confirm the reported diagnosis, to clarify the medical history, and to provide supporting medical records. However, we did not receive the requested information. 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 Absorbic Acid 500 milligram tablet to treat diagnosis not provided. The case was auto-forwarded by the plan.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.Drugs prescribed for use as vitamins and minerals are excluded from coverage under Medicare Part D. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from coverage. The plan's Evidence of Coverage does not indicate that supplemental coverage is provided for this drug.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Famotidine 20 milligram. 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.Drugs prescribed that are available over-the-counter are excluded from coverage under Medicare Part D. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from coverage. The plan's Evidence of Coverage does not indicate that supplemental coverage is provided for this drug.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Folic Acid 1 milligram tablet to treat diagnosis not provided. The case was auto-forwarded by the plan.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.Drugs prescribed for use as vitamins and minerals are excluded from coverage under Medicare Part D. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from coverage. The plan's Evidence of Coverage does not indicate that supplemental coverage is offered for this drug.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Thera-M tablet to treat diagnosis not provided. The case was auto-forwarded by the plan.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.Drugs prescribed for use as vitamins and minerals are excluded from coverage under Medicare Part D. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from coverage. The plan's Evidence of Coverage does not indicate that supplemental coverage is provided for this drug.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride 5-milligram tablets to treat sciatica, spinal stenosis, chronic pain syndrome, and radiculopathy. 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 GenVisc 850 10-milligram/milliliter syringe to treat osteoarthritis of the knee. 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. GenVisc 850 is an injectable that is approved by the Food and Drug Administration as a medical device that relieves the pain of knee or hip osteoarthritis. Since this is considered a device, it is not eligible for Part D benefits. We have determined that the plan is not required to cover GenVisc 850.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a tiering exception request for Pramipexole ER 0.75-milligram extended release tablets. 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.Pramipexole ER is being provided by the plan under a formulary exception. It is not on the plans formulary but they have agreed to provide it at a cost sharing level assigned to all formulary exceptions. Per Medicare rules, non-formulary drugs are not eligible for a tiering exception.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the plan is not required to cover the requested drug at a lower cost tier.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Budesonide Suspension 0.5-milligram/2-milliliter, (2-milligrams/8-milliliters-daily) (240-units/30-days) to treat eosinophilic esophagitis. 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 plan limits the amount of Budesonide Suspension 0.5-milligrams/milliliter to 60-units/30-days. The prescriber has not indicated, with support of medical records, that the number of doses of the requested drug allowed by the plan would likely be ineffective in treating the diagnosis or would be likely to cause harm. Therefore, an exception to the plans coverage criteria is not supported. A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Xeljanz 11-milligrams extended-release tablet to treat rheumatoid arthritis. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The requested drug is not on the plans formulary. In order to grant an exception for a drug not on the plans formulary, all 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 Docusate Sodium 100 milligram capsule. 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.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 Taltz 80-milligram per milliliter auto subcutaneous injection pen to treat hidradenitis suppurativa. 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. 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 Acetaminophen 500 milligram tablet. 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.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 Humira pen 80-milligram/0.8-milliliter to treat pyoderma gangrenosum. 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: Partially Favorable

At issue is compounded drug Magic Mouthwash suspension for diagnosis not provided. The case was auto-forwarded by the plan.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.Drugs prescribed that are available over-the-counter are excluded from coverage under Medicare Part D. The compounded drug Magic Mouthwash contains over the counter ingredients. Therefore, we determined that the plan is not required to cover the over the counter ingredients. However, We determined that the Medicare rules for the Clindamycin Hydrochloride have been met. Medicare rules allow a Part D plan to manage its formulary by requiring prior authorization, step therapy or quantity limits. The Clindamycin Hydrochloride ingredient is on the plan's formulary and is not subject to any of these restrictions. Therefore, the plan is required to provide reimbursement for the Clindamycin Hydrochloride included in the compound.