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

At issue is coverage for Gamunex C 20 grams per 200 milliliter injection to treat multifocal motor sensory demyelinating neuropathy. 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. 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 a tiering exception request for Repatha SureClick pen injector 140 milligrams per milliliter subcutaneous solution to treat primary hyperlipidemia with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. 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 available documentation.Repatha is a biologic drug on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. There are no biologic 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 Prednisolone Acetate 1 percent eye drops to treat the enrollees 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.During this review, we requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support that all lower-tiered drugs to treat the enrollees condition were tried and failed or were deemed contraindicated. However, the prescriber did not respond to our request.Prednisolone Acetate is a generic on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. The prescriber has not provided patient-specific clinical rationale as to why all of the lower-tiered alternative drugs on the plans formulary to treat the enrollees condition are contraindicated. Therefore, the tiering exception requirements have not been met. 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 Testosterone Cypionate 200 milligram per milliliter solution. 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 confirm that the drug is requested to treat a Medicare compendia supported indication and that the enrollee met the prior authorization criteria. However, the prescriber did not respond to our request.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 submitted documentation does not include medical records or evidence of a prescribed diagnosis. As such, there is insufficient documentation available to establish that the requested drug has been prescribed for a 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 Symbicort 160/4.5 microgram per actuation inhalation aerosol to treat unknown diagnosis. 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.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 submitted documentation does not include medical records or evidence of a prescribed diagnosis. This information was requested by the Part D plan with no response from the prescriber/prescribers office. As such, there is insufficient documentation available to establish that the requested drug has been prescribed for a 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 Hydroxyzine Hydrochloride 25 milligram tablet to treat pruritus. 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.During this review, we requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to clarify what condition is being treated with the requested drug and to support that the enrollee has satisfied the plans prior authorization coverage criteria. However, the prescriber did not respond to our request.At reconsideration, the diagnosis of anxiety was given with no supporting medical records submitted. It could not be determined what condition the requested drug is being requested to treat. 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 submitted documentation does not include medical records or clarity of a prescribed diagnosis. As such, there is insufficient documentation available to establish that the requested drug has been prescribed for a 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 reimbursement and a tiering exception request for Clonidine 0.1 milligram per 24 hour patch to treat hypertension. 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 available documentation.Clonidine is a generic drug on Tier 4 of the plans formulary. The prescriber has not provided patient-specific clinical rationale as to why all of the lower-tiered alternative drugs on the plans formulary to treat the enrollees condition are contraindicated. Therefore, the tiering exception requirements have not been met. A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for a tiering exception or further reimbursement.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Estradiol 0.01 percent cream to treat atrophic vaginitis. 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.Estradiol is a generic drug on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. There are no generic 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: Favorable

At issue is coverage for Octreotide Acetate 100 microgram per milliliter vial to treat iron deficiency anemia secondary to chronic blood loss related to small bowel angioectasias and arteriovenous malformations (angiodysplasias). 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.During this review, a request was submitted to the prescriber to provide medical records to confirm the condition being treated. The prescriber responded to the request. The additional documentation has been included it in the review.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 Medicare approved compendium, Drugdex, includes an off-label indication for the use of the requested drug to treat lower gastrointestinal hemorrhage associated with small bowel angioectasias and/or arteriovenous malformations. As outlined in Drugdex, Octreotide significantly decreased episodes of rebleeding in 3 trials of patients with small bowel angiodysplasias, and 1 trial of patients with small bowel angioectasias. Therefore, the requested drug is being prescribed to treat a medically accepted indication.The plan has prior authorization requirements that must be met before coverage of this drug is provided. However, the plans prior authorization requirements are diagnosis-specific and not related to the condition being treated. Since the condition being treated is a medically accepted indication outlined in Drugdex, an exception to the plans diagnosis-specific coverage requirements 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 a tiering exception request for Trelegy Ellipta 200/62.5/25. 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.Trelegy Ellipta is a brand drug on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. There are no brand drugs of the same type on the lower tiers of the plans formulary. 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 Wegovy 2.4 milligram per 0.75 milliliter pen injector to treat obesity. 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 a tiering exception request for Ozempic 0.25 milligram or 0.5 milligram dose pen to treat the enrollees 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.Ozempic 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 Diazepam 100 percent powder to treat enrollee's condition. 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 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/ or is consistent of bulk powder ingredients 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 coverage for Cequa 0.09 percent ophthalmic solution to treat severe dry eye. 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. There is insufficient documentation available to confirm that the plans requirements for coverage have been satisfied or to support the medical necessity for an exception to the plans prior authorization requirements, as the prescriber has not submitted any medical records for review. 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 Tirosint 50 microgram capsule to treat hypothyroidism, unspecified. 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 Nucynta 50 milligram tablet to treat chronic pain syndrome. 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 Mometasone Furoate 50 microgram nasal spray to treat chronic rhinitis. 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 Pimecrolimus 1 percent cream to treat tinea cruris. 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. 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 Tretinoin 0.025 percent cream to treat miliaria rubra. 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.  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 Ondansetron Hydrochloride 4 milligram oral tablet to treat nausea and vomiting unspecified. 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. 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 Gemtesa 75 milligram oral tablet to treat overactive bladder and nocturia. 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 Xifaxan 550 milligram tablet to treat celiac disease, abdominal distention (gaseous), and diarrhea, unspecified. 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.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 noted conditions are off-label uses for the requested drug. The Medicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for the treatment of these conditions. Therefore, the drug is being prescribed for non-medically accepted indications.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 bulk powder Fluorouracil 2 percent prescribed to treat the enrollees condition. 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.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 or is consistent of bulk powder ingredients 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. As such, the plan is not required to reimburse you for the cost of the drug.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 coverage for Urea 40 percent cream to treat corns and callosities. 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. Urea 40 percent cream has not been found by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to be safe and effective, and the drug product labeling has not been approved by the FDA. Drugs that are not FDA-approved do not meet the definition of a Part D drug and are excluded from Part D coverage. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from Medicare Part D coverage. This decision does not address the medical necessity of the requested drug. It only establishes that payment cannot be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.