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

At issue is Levobunolol 0.5-percent solution 0.5-milliliter syringe prescribed for unknown diagnosis. 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 submitted documentation shows the enrollee received Levobunolol as a self-administered drug in the hospital. According to the plan's Evidence of Coverage, if the enrollee pays the full cost of a prescription, the enrollee may submit a request for reimbursement with proof of payment to ask the plan to pay its share of the cost. The documentation includes a hospital statement showing the amount charged for the self-administered drug and a payment receipt. However, the amount of payment by the enrollee is less than the total amount charged for the self-administered drugs. In addition, the statement indicates that a discount was provided, but did not provide a breakdown of the applied discount to each drug. Therefore, reimbursement amounts cannot be determined and criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Lidocaine 1-percent solution prescribed for unknown diagnosis. 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 submitted documentation shows the enrollee received Lidocaine solution as a self-administered drug in the hospital. According to the plan's Evidence of Coverage, if the enrollee pays the full cost of a prescription, the enrollee may submit a request for reimbursement with proof of payment to ask the plan to pay its share of the cost. The documentation includes a hospital statement showing the amount charged for the self-administered drug and a payment receipt. However, the amount of payment by the enrollee is less than the total amount charged for the self-administered drugs. In addition, the statement indicates that a discount was provided, but did not provide a breakdown of the applied discount to each drug. Therefore, reimbursement amounts cannot be determined and criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Moxifloxacin 0.5-percent solution prescribed for unknown diagnosis. 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 submitted documentation shows the enrollee received Moxifloxacin as a self-administered drug in the hospital. According to the plan's Evidence of Coverage, if the enrollee pays the full cost of a prescription, the enrollee may submit a request for reimbursement with proof of payment to ask the plan to pay its share of the cost. The documentation includes a hospital statement showing the amount charged for the self-administered drug and a payment receipt. However, the amount of payment by the enrollee is less than the total amount charged for the self-administered drugs. In addition, the statement indicates that a discount was provided, but did not provide a breakdown of the applied discount to each drug. Therefore, reimbursement amounts cannot be determined and criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Ofloxacin 0.3-percent solution 0.5-milliter syringe prescribed for unknown diagnosis. 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 submitted documentation shows the enrollee received Ofloxacin as a self-administered drug in the hospital. According to the plan's Evidence of Coverage, if the enrollee pays the full cost of a prescription, the enrollee may submit a request for reimbursement with proof of payment to ask the plan to pay its share of the cost. The documentation includes a hospital statement showing the amount charged for the self-administered drug and a payment receipt. However, the amount of payment by the enrollee is less than the total amount charged for the self-administered drugs. In addition, the statement indicates that a discount was provided, but did not provide a breakdown of the applied discount to each drug. Therefore, reimbursement amounts cannot be determined and criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Pilocarpine 4-percent solution prescribed for unknown diagnosis. 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 submitted documentation shows the enrollee received Pilocarpine as a self-administered drug in the hospital. According to the plan's Evidence of Coverage, if the enrollee pays the full cost of a prescription, the enrollee may submit a request for reimbursement with proof of payment to ask the plan to pay its share of the cost. The documentation includes a hospital statement showing the amount charged for the self-administered drug and a payment receipt. However, the amount of payment by the enrollee is less than the total amount charged for the self-administered drugs. In addition, the statement indicates that a discount was provided, but did not provide a breakdown of the applied discount to each drug. Therefore, reimbursement amounts cannot be determined and criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Proparacaine 0.5-percent solution prescribed for unknown diagnosis. 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 submitted documentation shows the enrollee received Proparacaine as a self-administered drug in the hospital. According to the plan's Evidence of Coverage, if the enrollee pays the full cost of a prescription, the enrollee may submit a request for reimbursement with proof of payment to ask the plan to pay its share of the cost. The documentation includes a hospital statement showing the amount charged for the self-administered drug and a payment receipt. However, the amount of payment by the enrollee is less than the total amount charged for the self-administered drugs. In addition, the statement indicates that a discount was provided, but did not provide a breakdown of the applied discount to each drug. Therefore, reimbursement amounts cannot be determined and criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Sodium Hyaluronate 12-milligram/milliliter solution prescribed for unknown diagnosis. 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 submitted documentation shows the enrollee received Sodium Hyaluronate as a self-administered drug in the hospital. According to the plan's Evidence of Coverage, if the enrollee pays the full cost of a prescription, the enrollee may submit a request for reimbursement with proof of payment to ask the plan to pay its share of the cost. The documentation includes a hospital statement showing the amount charged for the self-administered drug and a payment receipt. However, the amount of payment by the enrollee is less than the total amount charged for the self-administered drugs. In addition, the statement indicates that a discount was provided, but did not provide a breakdown of the applied discount to each drug. Therefore, reimbursement amounts cannot be determined and criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Tetracaine 0.5-percent solution prescribed for unknown diagnosis. 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 submitted documentation shows the enrollee received Tetracaine as a self-administered drug in the hospital. According to the plan's Evidence of Coverage, if the enrollee pays the full cost of a prescription, the enrollee may submit a request for reimbursement with proof of payment to ask the plan to pay its share of the cost. The documentation includes a hospital statement showing the amount charged for the self-administered drug and a payment receipt. However, the amount of payment by the enrollee is less than the total amount charged for the self-administered drugs. In addition, the statement indicates that a discount was provided, but did not provide a breakdown of the applied discount to each drug. Therefore, reimbursement amounts cannot be determined and criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Tranexamic Acid powder 4-percent prescribed for unknown diagnosis. The case was auto-fowarded 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.We determined that the plan is not required to cover the requested drug. According to Medicare rules, drugs that fall into the category of bulk powders do not meet the definition of a Part D drug. The requested drug is considered a bulk powder and is excluded from coverage under Part D. This decision does not address the medical necessity or appropriateness of the requested drug. It only establishes if payment can be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a tiering exception request for Fluticasone- Salmeterol 250-50 micrograms per actuation to treat the enrollee's condition.  The Part D plan auto-forwarded the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. Fluticasone- Salmeterol is a generic drug on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. There are no generic drugs of the same type on the lower tiers of the plans formulary to treat the same diagnosis. Therefore, this drug is not eligible for a tiering exception. A physician reviewer determined that the tiering exception criteria are not met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a tiering exception request for Trulicity 0.75-milligram/0.5-milliliter pen to treat type 2 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 reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.Trulicity 0.75-milligram/0.5-milliliter pen is a biologic on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. There are no biologics of the same type on the lower tiers of the plans formulary to treat the same diagnosis. Therefore, this biologic is not eligible for a tiering exception.A physician reviewer determined that the tiering exception criteria are not met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Shingrix 0.5-milliliter injection. 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 submitted documentation shows the enrollee requested the Part D plan to provide reimbursement for the requested drug. However, there is missing information needed to consider the request. The required information should include the National Drug Code (NDC) of the requested drug and a statement showing the prescribing physicians name, address and National Provider Identifier (NPI) number. Therefore, we determined that the plan is not required to reimburse the enrollee without the required information.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Estradiol 0.5-milligram/gram-0.5 percent prescribed for unknown 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. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.We determined that the plan is not required to cover the requested drug. According to Medicare rules, drugs that fall into the category of bulk powders do not meet the definition of a Part D drug. The requested drug is considered a bulk powder and is excluded from coverage under Part D. This decision does not address the medical necessity or appropriateness of the requested drug. It only establishes if payment can be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Boostrix vaccine and administration fee prescribed for vaccination. 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 submitted documentation shows the enrollee was administered the requested drug for vaccination in the prescriber's office. The plans Evidence of Coverage states, if the enrollee pays the full cost of a prescription, then they 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 or physician's statement showing the amount that was paid by the enrollee was not provided. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Shingrix vaccine and administration fee prescribed for vaccination. 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 submitted documentation shows the enrollee was administered the requested drug for vaccination in the prescriber's office. The plans Evidence of Coverage states, if the enrollee pays the full cost of a prescription, then they 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 or physician's statement showing the amount that was paid by the enrollee was not provided. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Estradiol 0.075-milligram patches prescribed for an unknown diagnosis. The case was auto-forwarded by the plan.We received a case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. The plan submitted documentation that shows the claim for the requested drug was approved and a copayment of $106 was charged to the enrollee for dates of fill April 2, 2021, July 5, 2021 and July 12, 2021. The plan provided reimbursement for the plan's share of the cost for each of these dates of fill. The claim for date of fill October 5, 2021 was approved and a copay of $106 was charged and paid by the enrollee at the point of sale. Therefore, we determined no further reimbursement is required by the plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Tacrolimus 0.1 percent ointment to treat perioral dermatitis. 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 Sandostatin LAR Depot 20-milligram Kit to treat left ventricular assist device-associated mucosal bleeding. 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 Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride 10-milligram tablet to treat lumbar stenosis with chronic back pain and muscle spasms. 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 diagnoses 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 a tiering exception request for Olopatadine Hydrochloride 0.1 percent solution to treat chronic allergic conjunctivitis. 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. Olopatadine Hydrochloride 0.1 percent solution is a generic drug on Tier 3 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 a tiering exception request for Repatha Pushtronex 420-milligram/3.5-milliliter wear 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.Repatha Pushtronex is a biologic on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. There are no biologics of the same type on the lower tiers of the plans formulary to treat the same diagnosis. Therefore, this biologic is not eligible for a tiering exception.A physician reviewer determined that the tiering exception criteria are not met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a tiering exception request for Eliquis 2.5-milligram tablet to reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism associated with 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.Eliquis 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 to treat the same diagnosis. Therefore, this drug is not eligible for a tiering exception.A physician reviewer determined that the tiering exception criteria are not met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a tiering exception request for Trintellix 10-milligram tablet to treat major depressive disorder without prior episode. 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. Trintellix is a brand drug on Tier 4 of the plans formulary. There are no brand drugs of the same type on the lower tiers of the plans formulary to treat the same diagnosis. Therefore, this drug is not eligible for a tiering exception. A physician reviewer determined that the tiering exception criteria are not met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Sildenafil 20-milligram tablet to treat pulmonary hypertension due to lung 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 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 coverage for Humira (CF) Pen PS-UV-AHS 80-milligram per 0.8-milliliter and 40-milligram per 0.4-milliliter subcutaneous injection pen kit to treat plaque psoriasis. 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.