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

At issue is Nurtec 75 milligram oral disintegrating tablet to treat vascular headache in an enrollee with a history of cerebellar stroke. 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 Aimovig 140 milligram per milliliter subcutaneous injection pen to treat migraines. 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 confirm that all of the plans requirements for coverage have been met.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Nurtec ODT (orally disintegrating tablet) 75 milligram tablet to treat migraine headaches. 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.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

At issue is Boostrix Tetanus Diphtheria and Pertussis vaccine prescribed for vaccination. The Part D plan auto-forwarded the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review of this request for coverage. We reviewed all documentation submitted for review, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. The submitted documentation shows the enrollee received the vaccine at the prescriber's office. The plans Evidence of Coverage states that payment for vaccines including administration fee is required up front from the enrollee when provided at an out of network pharmacy or prescribers office. If an 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 enrollee provided a statement from the prescribers office and a receipt indicating full payment was made for the vaccine and administration fee. Therefore, we determined the plan is required to provide reimbursement, based on the enrollee's cost share stage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Lidocaine 5 percent patch to treat polyarthritis, unspecified. 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 a medically accepted indication, pain etiology and history, medical records, and a prescriber statement to support that the enrollee has satisfied the plans prior authorization coverage criteria. However, we did not receive the requested information.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 Oxycodone 40 milligram tablet prescribed for unknown diagnosis. The Part D plan denied the additional reimbursement request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review of this request for coverage. We reviewed all documentation submitted for review, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. The plan submitted documentation that shows the enrollee paid $268.86 at a net-work pharmacy for the requested drug on January 27, 2022. Additional information provided by the plan shows the claim was reversed by the pharmacy and ran again through the enrollees Part D plan on February 8, 2022 with a correct copay of $6.06. The plan indicated that the pharmacy issued a credit to the enrollee for the difference of $262.80. Therefore, we determined that the plan calculated the copay correctly for the reversed claim filed by the enrollees pharmacy, and is not responsible for additional reimbursement.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Tetanus vaccine prescribed for vaccination. 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 vaccine and administration fee provided in the prescriber's office. However, there is missing information needed to consider the request. The submitted documentation does not include the prescribing physicians National Provider Identifier (NPI) number and National Drug Code (NDC) of the requested vaccine. Therefore, we determined the reimbursement criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Omeprazole 20 milligram capsule, 60 capsules per 30 days, to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease without esophagitis. 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.We requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records to support the quantity prescribed was medically necessary for the enrollee. However, we did not receive the requested information.The plan limits the amount of Omeprazole to 30 capsules per 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 Alprazolam 2 milligram extended release tablet to treat anxiety and sleep disorder. 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 confirm a diagnosis and address the formulary alternatives were tried and failed or were contraindicated. 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 Ongentys 50 milligram capsule to treat Parkinsons disease. 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 prescriber has not indicated that all alternatives required by the plan have been tried and failed, or why the plans required step therapy drugs would likely not be as effective as the requested drug. A physician reviewer determined that neither step therapy nor step therapy exception criteria are met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Cyclosporine in Klarity 0.1 percent ophthalmic emulsion prescribed for unspecified 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 compounded drug. However, there is missing information needed to consider the request. The documentation provided includes a statement from the compounding pharmacy. 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. 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 Ozempic 0.25 milligram or 0.5 milligram (2 milligram per 1.5 milliliter) subcutaneous pen injector to treat 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.Ozempic 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 Folic Acid 1 milligram tablet prescribed for unspecified diagnosis. The Part D plan auto-forwarded the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review of this request for coverage. We reviewed all documentation submitted for review, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. Medicare records show that Sanford Health Insurance is the enrollee's primary insurance provider and the Medicare Part D plan is secondary. The submitted documentation does not include an Explanation of Benefits (EOB) from the primary insurance for the drug requested. Therefore, we determined that the plan is not required to provide reimbursement.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Synthroid 112 microgram tablet prescribed for unspecified diagnosis. The plan auto-forwarded the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review of this request for coverage. We reviewed all documentation submitted for review, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. The submitted documentation shows the enrollee 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 Pharmacy name, drug name with quantity, Pharmacy receipt indicating the enrollee paid for the drug, the National Drug Code (NDC) of the requested drug, and 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 a tiering exception request for Rocklatan 0.02-0.005 percent eye drops prescribed to control intraocular pressure in an enrollee with glaucoma. 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.Rocklatan is a brand drug on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. There are no brand drugs of the same type to treat the noted condition on the lower tiers of the plans formulary. If there are no brand drugs of the same type on a lower tier, the drug is not eligible for a tiering exception. A physician reviewer determined that tiering exception criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

Sildenafil Citrate 20 milligram tablet 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, to address the prior authorization 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 Lokelma 10 gram powder packet, 30 packets per 3 days, to treat hyperkalemia and end stage renal disease. 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 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.The plan limits the amount of Lokelma to 93 packets per 31 days, or 3 per day. 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: Favorable

At issue is Buprenorphine 8 milligram sublingual tablet to treat chronic pain disorder. 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 documentation shows the enrollee has a diagnosis of chronic pain disorder and has been receiving the requested drug for pain control since 2013. The documentation satisfies the plans coverage criteria. 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 reimbursement for Levothyroxine 125 microgram capsule. 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.However, there is no diagnosis provided as to why this drug was required. It was unable to be determined if the drug was being given for a medically accepted indication. In addition, the drug, in capsule form, is not on formulary. In this case, the documentation does not support why the formulary drug in tablet form could not be used.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 Clonazepam 0.25 milligram orally disintegrating tablet. 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.Clonazepam 0.25 milligram orally disintegrating tablet is a generic drug on Tier 4 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 Betimol 0.5 percent eye drops to treat elevated intraocular pressure with open-angle glaucoma. 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.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is reimbursement for Shingrix Vial Kit. The case was auto-forwarded by the plan.The documentation shows a Shingrix vaccine was purchased on October 15, 2021. A receipt is provided that shows $190.61 was paid. However, the requirements for reimbursement were not met. The National Drug Code was not provided on the Prescription Drug Claim Form. The administration fee was not clear and should be submitted showing the service as administration of a vaccine with proof of payment that that administration fee was paid. In addition, the Shingrex vaccine and administration fee from the clinic for the date February 28, 2022, did not have the National Drug Code submitted on the Prescription Drug Claim Form or include the itemized bill showing administration of a vaccine.Medicare rules state that drug claims must include a valid National Drug Code that is listed with the Food and Drug Administration. The record does not include a National Drug Code for the Shingrix vaccines or the administration fee clearly documented on the bill as such. Therefore, we determined that the plan is not required to reimburse the enrollee for the Shingrix vaccine and administration fee at this time.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Memantine Hydrochloride 5 milligram tablet to treat bipolar disorder. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The use of the requested drug to treat the provided diagnosis is an off-label use. The Medicare approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for the treatment of this diagnosis. Therefore, the requested drug(s) is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Diclofenac Sodium 1% gel to treat unspecified rotator cuff tear, osteoarthritis right and left hip. 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 initial diagnosis provided was unspecified rotator cuff tear. reconsideration an additional diagnosis of osteoarthritis of the right and left hip.  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 a tiering exception request for Xarelto 2.5 milligram tablet for an enrollee with extensive lower extremity arterial vascular 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.Xarelto is a brand drug on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. There are no brand drugs on the lower tiers of the plans formulary to treat the same condition. 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 Repatha Sureclick 140-milligram per milliliter to treat hyperlipidemia, unspecified. 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 Sureclick is a biologic on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. There are no biologic 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.