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

At issue is Cyclobenzaprine 10 milligram prescribed for unknown diagnosis in a hospital outpatient stay. 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 requested drug as a self-administered drug in the hospital. According to the plan's Evidence of Coverage, if you pay 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 drugs and a credit card receipt indicating a total amount paid by the enrollee. However, the enrollees payment amount conflicts with the self administered portion of the bill that indicates multiple credits were applied. The enrollee did not provide clarification. Therefore, reimbursement criteria has not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Doxazosin 2 milligram prescribed for unknown diagnosis in a hospital outpatient stay. 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 requested drug as a self-administered drug in the hospital. According to the plan's Evidence of Coverage, if you pay 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 drugs and a credit card receipt indicating a total amount paid by the enrollee. However, the enrollees payment amount conflicts with the self administered portion of the bill that indicates multiple credits were applied. The enrollee did not provide clarification. Therefore, reimbursement criteria has not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Doxycycline Monohydrate 100 milligram prescribed for unknown diagnosis in a hospital outpatient stay. 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 requested drug as a self-administered drug in the hospital. According to the plan's Evidence of Coverage, if you pay 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 drugs and a credit card receipt indicating a total amount paid by the enrollee. However, the enrollees payment amount conflicts with the self administered portion of the bill that indicates multiple credits were applied. The enrollee did not provide clarification. Therefore, reimbursement criteria has not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Finasteride 5 milligram prescribed for unknown diagnosis in a hospital outpatient stay. 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 requested drug as a self-administered drug in the hospital. According to the plan's Evidence of Coverage, if you pay 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 drugs and a credit card receipt indicating a total amount paid by the enrollee. However, the enrollees payment amount conflicts with the self administered portion of the bill that indicates multiple credits were applied. The enrollee did not provide clarification. Therefore, reimbursement criteria has not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Miralax prescribed for unknown diagnosis in an oupatient stay. The Part D plan denied the reimbursement request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.Drugs prescribed that are available Over the Counter are excluded from coverage under Medicare Part D. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Oxycodone ER 5 milligram prescribed for unknown diagnosis in a hospital outpatient stay. 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 requested drug as a self-administered drug in the hospital. According to the plan's Evidence of Coverage, if you pay 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 drugs and a credit card receipt indicating a total amount paid by the enrollee. However, the enrollees payment amount conflicts with the self administered portion of the bill that indicates multiple credits were applied. The enrollee did not provide clarification. Therefore, reimbursement criteria has not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Oxycodone-Acetaminophen 5-325 milligram prescribed for unknown diagnosis in a hospital outpatient stay. 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 requested drug as a self-administered drug in the hospital. According to the plan's Evidence of Coverage, if you pay 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 drugs and a credit card receipt indicating a total amount paid by the enrollee. However, the enrollees payment amount conflicts with the self administered portion of the bill that indicates multiple credits were applied. The enrollee did not provide clarification. Therefore, reimbursement criteria has not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Probenecid 500 milligram prescribed for unknown diagnosis in a hospital outpatient stay. 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 requested drug as a self-administered drug in the hospital. According to the plan's Evidence of Coverage, if you pay 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 drugs and a credit card receipt indicating a total amount paid by the enrollee. However, the enrollees payment amount conflicts with the self administered portion of the bill that indicates multiple credits were applied. The enrollee did not provide clarification. Therefore, reimbursement criteria has not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Senna Plus 8.6-50 milligram prescribed for unknown diagnosis in an oupatient stay. The Part D plan denied the reimbursement request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.Drugs prescribed that are available Over the Counter are excluded from coverage under Medicare Part D. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Tamsulosin 0.4 milligram prescribed for unknown diagnosis in a hospital outpatient stay. 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 requested drug as a self-administered drug in the hospital. According to the plan's Evidence of Coverage, if you pay 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 drugs and a credit card receipt indicating a total amount paid by the enrollee. However, the enrollees payment amount conflicts with the self administered portion of the bill that indicates multiple credits were applied. The enrollee did not provide clarification. Therefore, reimbursement criteria has not been met..
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Taltz 80-milligram/milliliter auto injector to treat plaque psoriasis. 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 Promacta 50-milligram tablets to treat chronic immune thrombocytopenic purpura. 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. These requirements 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 Lidocaine 5-percent Ointment, 238.52-grams every 15-days 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.At reconsideration a diagnosis of musculoskeletal pain in a patient with hypermobility secondary to Ehlers-Danlos syndrome with current injuries. 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.Additionally, the plan limits the amount of Lidocaine 5-percent Ointment to 35.44-grams every 30-days. Since the drug is not allowed for the treatment of your condition, the quantity limit exception cannot be allowed. 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 Ethacrynic Acid 25-milligram tablets to treat edema due to heart failure. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.This drug is being provided by the plan 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 reviewer determined that tiering exception criteria are not met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Cimzia 200-milligram/milliliter kit to treat Crohn's 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 required by the plan,  must have been tried, failed, or deemed contraindicated. In this case, the documentation does not support why alternative drugs provided on the plans formulary list 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 Intron A 10-million unit per milliliter vials for injection to treat induratio penis plastica (Peyronies 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 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 diagnosis. 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 Ondansetron Hydrochloride 8-milligram tablets to treat nausea related to early satiety. 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 Diclofenac Sodium 3-percent gel to treat primary osteoarthritis. 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.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 this form of the requested drug, as prescribed, for the treatment of this diagnosis. 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 Actemra ACTPen 162-milligram/0.9 milliliter solution auto-injector to treat polymyalgia rheumatica. 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 Otezla 30-milligram tablets to treat moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. 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 did not sufficiently address why all alternative drugs provided on the plans formulary list would likely not be as effective for this diagnosis and/or would likely cause adverse reactions 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 Lidocaine-Prilocaine 2.5-2.5-percent 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. Based on the information provided, we determined the drug may be eligible for coverage under Part B under Medicare rules.According to Medicare rules, the requested drug cannot be approved for separate payment under Part D when it is for treatment on a patient who is receiving dialysis. Medicare records show the enrollee is actively receiving dialysis. Therefore, the Lidocaine-Prilocaine cream must be billed by the renal dialysis facility. We determined that the plan is not required to cover the Lidocaine-Prilocaine cream.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Albuterol Sulfate 2.5-milligrams/3-milliliter every six hours as needed. 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 record shows the Albuterol Sulfate is being administered through a nebulizer in the home setting. Medicare Part B 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.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Wegovy 2.4-milligram/0.75-milliliter solution to treat weight gain. 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 to treat weight gain (promote weight loss) 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 Pregabalin 25-milligram capsule to treat lumbar stenosis. 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 Plegridy 125-micrograms/0.5-milliliter solution in prefilled syringe to treat multiple sclerosis. 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 alternative drugs provided on the plans formulary list 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.