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

At issue is Prolia 60-milligram/milliliter solution. 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 biologic may be eligible for coverage under Part B under Medicare rules.The plan does not offer supplemental (additional) coverage for this biologic. If the enrollee purchased biologics that are excluded, the enrollee must pay for them. This decision does not address the medical necessity or appropriateness of the biologic. It only establishes that payment cannot be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Keytruda 100 milligram/4 milliliter vial to treat malignant neoplasm of the endometrium. 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 submitted documentation is insufficient to grant a favorable decision and the QIC has made reasonable attempts to request more information with no response. 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 Calcitriol 0.25-microgram capsules prescribed for secondary hyperthyroidism of renal origin. 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. We also researched Medicare systems and reviewed the enrollment data available. We determined that the plan is not required to cover the drug. Medicare records indicate the enrollee received a kidney transplant, which was covered by Medicare Part A. Therefore, the transplant is considered a Medicare covered transplant and the requested drug is eligible under Medicare Part B. Medicare rules state that a drug covered under Part B cannot be covered under Part D. This decision does not address the medical necessity or appropriateness of the drug. It only establishes that payment cannot be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Lumakras 120-milligram tablets to treat metastatic non-small cell lung cancer, KRAS G12C mutated, as first line therapy. 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 as first line therapy. 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 Ibrance 100-milligram tablets to treat metastatic breast cancer, HR positive, HER2 negative as second line therapy following previous CDK4/6 inhibitor use. 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 Nurtec ODT 75-milligram tablet for abortive therapy for breakthrough migraine headaches. The Part D plan denied the request. The requested drug is not on the plans formulary.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The prescriber has not shown why all formulary alternatives required by the plan would likely not be as effective as the requested drug for this diagnosis, and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm. Therefore, an exception to the plans formulary coverage criteria is not medically necessary. A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Tacrolimus 0.1-percent ointment to treat transient acantholytic dermatitis and inverse 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.We requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support the enrollee has satisfied the plans prior authorization coverage criteria. We received additional documentation and included it in the review.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 Triamcinolone 10 milliliter 0.67 percent suspension prescribed for unknown diagnosis. 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 requested the plan to provide reimbursement for the compounded drug. However, the plan indicates that there is missing information needed to consider the request. The documentation provided includes a drug label from the compounding pharmacy. It does not include a breakdown of ingredients for the Dual Compound Med including the National Drug Code (NDC) for each of the ingredients. According to the plan's Evidence of Coverage, if you pay the full cost of a prescription, you may submit a request for reimbursement with proof of payment to ask the plan to pay its share of the cost. In this case, proof of payment in the form of a receipt showing the amount that the enrollee paid for the drug was not provided. In addition, the prescribers name and National Provider Identifier (NPI) number of the prescriber is missing. Therefore, we determined that the plan is not required to reimburse the enrollee without the required documentation.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a tiering exception request for Mesalamine 1.2-gram delayed release tablet to treat chronic ulcerative pancolitis without complications. 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.Mesalamine delayed release tablet 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 Repatha Sureclick 140-milligram/milliliter auto injector to treat hyperlipidemia. 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 plan's formulary. The prescriber has not indicated why all alternatives required by the Plan would likely not be as effective for the enrollee as the requested drug; and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm to the enrollee. 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 Hetlioz 20-milligram capsule to treat circadian rhythm sleep disorder, free running type (Non-24). The plan denied the request.We performed an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.We requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested a prescriber statement, answers to prior authorization coverage criteria, and medical records. However, we did not receive the documentation.Your plan has prior authorization requirements for this drug that must be met before they will cover the requested drug. The documentation provided does not show the enrollee has satisfied the plan's coverage criteria.A physician reviewed your appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Kesimpta 20 milligram/0.4 milliliter pen to treat relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis. The Part D plan denied the request. The requested drug is not on the plans formulary.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The prescriber has not provided patient specific clinical rationale, supported by documentation, as to why all formulary alternatives required by the plan would likely not be as effective as the requested drug for this diagnosis, and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm. Therefore, an exception to the plans formulary coverage criteria is not medically necessary. 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 Calcitriol 0.5 microgram capsule prescribed daily for end stage renal 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 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. Based on the information provided, the requested drug is eligible for coverage under the Part B end stage renal disease payment bundle. Drugs which are eligible for Part B coverage are excluded from Part D coverage. This decision does not address the medical necessity or appropriateness of the drug. It only establishes that payment cannot be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Truvada 200/300-milligram tablet to treat unspecified viral hepatitis B without hepatic coma. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The use of the requested drug to treat the provided diagnosis is an off-label use. The Medicare approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for the treatment of this condition. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Diazepam 10-milligram tablet prescribed 90 tablets per 90 days to treat the enrollees diagnosis. 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 plan limits the amount of Diazepam provided as 30 tablets for 30-day supply. A supply longer than 30 days will not be provided. 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 Benlysta 200 milligram/milliliter auto injector. 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 plan does not offer supplemental (additional) coverage for this drug. If the enrollee purchased drugs that are excluded, the enrollee must pay for them. This decision does not address the medical necessity or appropriateness of the drug. It only establishes that payment cannot be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Mesalamine 4-gram/60-milliliter kit to treat ulcerative colitis of the rectum. 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. The same medication is on the formulary, but not in KIT form. 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.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Hetlioz 20-milligram capsule to treat circadian rhythm sleep disorder, non-24 hour, free-running type. 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 supporting information on the diagnosis and to address the prior authorization criteria. However, a reply from the prescriber was not received. The plan has prior authorization requirements for this drug. These requirements must be met before coverage can be extended. The 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 Ondansetron 8-milligram orally disintegrating tablets to treat an unknown condition. 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.The available documentation does not include any medical records from the prescriber or the enrollees diagnosis. During this review, a request was submitted to the prescriber to provide the diagnosis and supporting medical records. The prescriber did not respond to the request. Without a diagnosis, it cannot be determined if the drug is being prescribed for a medically accepted indication outlined in the Medicare approved compendia. As such, the drug is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D. A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the plan is not required to cover the requested drug.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Lidocaine 5-percent patch to treat right-sided chest wall pain due to a fall. 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 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 Saxenda 18-milligram/3-milliliter pen injector to treat an unspecified 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 reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.Since a diagnosis is not known, it cannot be determined that this drug was prescribed for a medically accepted indication. 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 Buprenorphine Hydrochloride 8-milligram sublingual tablet to treat radiculopathy, cervical region and spondylosis without myelopathy or radiculopathy, lumbar region. 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 Kesimpta 20-milligram/0.4-milliliter pen injector to treat active secondary progressive 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 biologic is not on the plans formulary. In order to grant an exception for a biologic not on the plans formulary, alternative formulary biologics required by the plan must have been tried, failed, or deemed contraindicated. In this case, the documentation does not support why alternative biologics 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 biologic is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Valsartan 160 milligram tablet prescribed for 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 reviewed 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 submitted documentation that shows the enrollee was still in the deductible stage of the Part D benefit when the requested drug was purchased. The plans Evidence of Coverage states that the enrollee is responsible for the full cost of covered drugs until the deductible amount is satisfied. We determined this drug was paid correctly and no reimbursement is required by the plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Nexium 40-milligram capsule daily to treat gastroesophageal reflux 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.We requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support all formulary alternatives required by the plan were tried and failed or were contraindicated. However, we did not receive the requested information.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.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a tiering exception request for Nexlizet 180-milligram/10-milligram 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.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.