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

At issue is Tymlos 3120 microgram per 1.56 milliliter to treat age-related osteoporosis with current pathological fracture with routine healing. 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. However, we did not receive the requested information.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 coverage for the non-formulary drug, Dextroamphetamine-Amphetamine ER 30 milligram extended-release capsule. The Part D plan auto-forwarded the case to us for review.We received the submitted documentation to perform an independent and de novo review. We reviewed all the documentation submitted.During this review, we requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support a coverable diagnosis and to address the alternative drugs included in the plans formulary to treat the diagnosis. The prescriber did not respond to the request.The submitted documentation does not include medical records or evidence of a prescribed diagnosis. Therefore, it cannot be determined if the 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 Eliquis 2.5 milligram tablet as anti-coagulation therapy for prophylaxis of cerebral vascular accident and systemic embolism in an enrollee 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. This includes any information submitted at the reconsideration level. We requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested a clarification of the diagnosis, medical records to support the enrollees medical history, and that all formulary alternatives 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 the formulary alternatives, required by the plan would likely not be as effective for this diagnosis, and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm. A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Novolog Flexpen 100 units per milliliter insulin to treat diabetes. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read your case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. We requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested documentation such as medical records to support the enrollees medical history, and that all formulary alternatives 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 the formulary alternatives, required by the plan would likely not be as effective for this diagnosis, and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm. A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Jardiance 10 milligram tablets (180 tablets per 90 days). The case was auto-forwarded by the plan.We received the submitted documentation to perform an independent and de novo review.A request was submitted to the prescriber to provide a diagnosis, to clarify the medical history, to address the plan's quantity limit criteria, and to provide supporting medical records.  A reply from the prescriber was not received. Without a diagnosis, it cannot be established that the requested drug is being prescribed for a medically accepted indication. As such, the requested drug does not satisfy the definition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D. A physician reviewed your appeal and determined that the plan is not required to cover the requested drug.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

At issue is Humira 10 milligram per 0.8 milliliter pen injector to treat rheumatoid arthritis. 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 Humira 10 milligram per 0.8 milliliter pen injector to plan 2 pens per 28 days. The prescriber has indicated that the number of doses of the requested drug allowed by the plan has not been effective in treating the diagnosis. Also, the provider has indicated that there will no concomitant methotrexate while on Humira. Therefore, an exception to the plans quantity limit coverage criteria is medically necessary.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

Novolin 70/30 flexpen was requested to treat the enrollees condition. The Part D plan denied your request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.A request was submitted to the prescriber to provide a diagnosis, step therapy requirements and supporting medical records. A reply from the prescriber was not received. Without a diagnosis, it cannot be established that the requested drug is being prescribed for a medically accepted indication. As such, the requested drug does not satisfy the definition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D. A physician reviewed your appeal and determined that the plan is not required to cover the requested drug.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Nifedipine 60 milligram extended release osmotic tablet. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read your case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. A request was submitted to the prescriber to provide a diagnosis, to clarify the medical history, to address the nonformulary exception criteria, and to provide supporting medical records.  A reply from the prescriber was not received. Without a diagnosis, it cannot be established that the requested drug is being prescribed for a medically accepted indication. As such, the requested drug does not satisfy the definition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D. A physician reviewed your appeal and determined that the plan is not required to cover the requested drug.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Ziprasidone Hydrochloride 80 milligram capsule to treat bipolar disorder. 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 read the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The plan limits the amount of Ziprasidone Hydrochloride to 60 capsules in 30 days. The prescriber has not indicated that the number of doses of the requested drug allowed by the plan would likely be ineffective in treating the diagnosis or would be likely to cause harm. Therefore, an exception to the plans coverage criteria is not supported. 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 Zolpidem Tartrate 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, 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. However, we did not receive the requested information.The submitted documentation does not include medical records or evidence of a prescribed diagnosis. Therefore, it cannot be determined if the drug was 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 Pregabalin 25 milligram capsules to treat unspecified polyneuropathy. 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 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 Dupixent 300 milligram per 2 milliliter injection solution to treat bullous pemphigoid. 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 were tried and failed or were contraindicated. We received additional documentation and included it in the review.The requested drug is not on the plans formulary. In order to grant an exception for a drug not on the plans formulary, alternative formulary drugs must have been tried, failed, or deemed contraindicated. In this case, the documentation does not support why the formulary alternatives, required by the plan would likely not be as effective for this diagnosis, and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

Auryxia  210 milligram tablet was requested to treat other disorders of phosphorus metabolism. 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.We requested additional information from the prescriber.  Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support all formulary alternatives were tried and failed or were contraindicated. 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. However, we did not receive the requested information. In this case, the documentation does not support why the formulary alternatives, required by the plan would likely not be as effective for this diagnosis, and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

At issue is coverage for Scopolamine 1 milligram transdermal 72-hour patch, 10 patches per 30 days. 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 documentation submitted. During the review, we requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to provide the diagnosis being treated and to address the plans coverage requirements for the drug. We received additional documentation and included it in the review.The newly submitted documentation supports that the plans prior authorization requirements for the requested drug have been satisfied. The documentation indicates that the requested drug has been prescribed to treat motion sickness, which is a medically accepted indication for the drug outlined in the Medicare approved compendia. Additionally, the prescriber has indicated that the enrollee has been assessed for the risk versus benefit of this medication and has discussed the risks and potential side effects of the medication with the enrollee. Furthermore, the prescriber has attested that the benefits of the requested high-risk medication outweigh the risks for the enrollee. As such, the plans prior authorization requirements have been satisfied and coverage for the drug is supported.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

At issue is a tiering exception request for Fluorometholone 0.1 percent eye drops to treat dry eyes. 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.Fluorometholone is a generic drug on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. The prescriber has provided reasons why they would likely not be as effective or harmful. The prescriber states the requested drug has adverse effects with long term use. Medicare approved compendia show that long-term therapy should be avoided. Therefore, this drug is eligible for an exception. A physician reviewer determined that tiering exception criteria are met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Flowflex COVID-19 Antigen home test kit. The case was auto-forwarded by the plan.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The requested test kit is considered a non-prescription product and does not meet the definition of a Part D drug. Therefore, the requested product is excluded from coverage under the Part D benefit and not eligible for reimbursement.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a reimbursement request for Xanax 0.5 milligram tablets. The Part D plan denied the request.We received a 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 does not include a valid proof of purchase for the drug at issue. Therefore, the request for reimbursement cannot be granted.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a direct member reimbursement for Budesonide 0.6 milligram capsules. The case was auto-forwarded by the plan.We received the submitted documentation to perform an independent and de novo review.The submitted documentation does not include medical records or evidence of a prescribed diagnosis. Therefore, it cannot be determined if the drug was prescribed for a medically accepted indication. A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D reimbursement.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a direct member reimbursement for Clindamycin 50 milligram capsules. The case was auto-forwarded by the plan.We received the submitted documentation to perform an independent and de novo review.The submitted documentation does not include medical records or evidence of a prescribed diagnosis. Therefore, it cannot be determined if the drug was prescribed for a medically accepted indication. A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D reimbursement.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a direct member reimbursement for Doxycycline 30 milligram capsules. The case was auto-forwarded by the plan.We received the submitted documentation to perform an independent and de novo review.The submitted documentation does not include medical records or evidence of a prescribed diagnosis. Therefore, it cannot be determined if the drug was prescribed for a medically accepted indication. A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D reimbursement.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is reimbursement for Autologous Serum Tear Therapy, a compound consisting of patient specific blood serum and Balanced Salt Solution, to treat dry eyes. 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 Balanced Salt Solution is an over-the-counter item and is not eligible for coverage under Part D. Therefore, there are no components eligible for coverage under Part D benefits. We determined the plan is not required to provide reimbursement for the compounded drug Autologous Serum Tear Therapy.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a tiering exception request for Gemtesa 75 milligram tablet to treat overactive bladder. 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.Gemtesa is a brand 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 Diclofenac Sodium 1 percent gel to treat spondylosis without myelopathy or radiculopathy, cervical 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 coverage for Tadalafil 20 milligram tablet to treat atrioventricular septal defect due to the presence of congenital heart disease. The Part D plan denied the request for coverage. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The use of the requested drug to treat the noted condition is an off-label use. The Medicare approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for the treatment of this condition. Therefore, the drug is being prescribed for a non-medically accepted indication.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Repatha SureClick 140 milligram per milliliter solution 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 plans formulary. In order to grant an exception for a drug not on the plans formulary, alternative formulary drugs must have been tried, failed, or deemed contraindicated. In this case, the documentation does not support why the formulary alternatives, required by the plan would likely not be as effective for this diagnosis, and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm. A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.