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

At issue is Nucynta 100-milligram extended release tablet to treat low back pain, lumbar radiculopathy, and knee pain. 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 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 Chlordiazepoxide-Clidinium 5-2.5-milligram capsules to treat irritable bowel syndrome. 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 prescriber has not provided patient specific clinical rationale, supported by medical records, as to why the formulary alternatives included in the plan to treat the enrollees condition would likely not be as effective as the requested drug and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm. During this review, a request was submitted to the prescriber to address the alternative medications included in the plans formulary and to provide supporting medical records. The prescriber did not respond to the request. Therefore, the formulary exception criteria have not been met. 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 Shingrix vaccine prescribed for vaccination. The Part D plan denied the request for reimbursement.  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 submitted documentation shows the enrollee received the vaccine at their physicians office. Payment for vaccines including administration fee is required up front from the enrollee when provided at an out of network pharmacy or provider's office. The enrollee submitted documentation to the plan that includes a reimbursement request and a copy of an itemized bill. However, the documentation does not include proof of payment such as a receipt or an itemized statement showing the bill was paid in full. Therefore, we determined that the plan is not required to reimburse you for the vaccine.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Tirosint 175-microgram capsule to treat hypothyroidism. 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 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 Heplisav-b 20 microgram/0.5 syringe prescribed for hepatitis vaccination.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 plan denied the request for coverage because drugs classified as covered under Medicare Part B cannot be covered by the Medicare Part D drug benefit. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a tiering exception request for Eliquis 2.5-milligram tablet to treat 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/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 Tirosint 150-microgram capsules to treat hypothyroidism, 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.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 Ciclopirox 1 percent shampoo to treat seborrheic dermatitis of the scalp. 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 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 Pregabalin 50-milligram capsules to treat idiopathic peripheral autonomic neuropathy. 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.Pregabalin 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 Prolastin-C 1,000-milligrams per 2-milliliter vial to treat alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency and chronic obstructive pulmonary 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 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 Eysuvis 0.25 percent ophthalmic suspension to treat dry eye syndrome. 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 approved. 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 a tiering exception request for Vyzulta 0.024-percent Ophthalmic Solution to treat open angle glaucoma, bilateral, mild. 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.Vyzulta 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 the tiering exception criteria are not met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Dupixent 300-milligram/2-milliliter pen to treat atopic 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 drug at issue is not on the plans formulary. The prescriber provided patient specific clinical rationale supported by documentation, indicating why the 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 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

At issue is Vraylar 3-milligarm capsules prescribed for treatment-resistant depression and anxiety. 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 noted conditions are off-label uses for the requested drug. The Medicare approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for the treatment of these conditions. Therefore, the 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 a formulary exception for Truxima 100-milligram/10-milliliter vial to treat IgG4 autoimmune pancreatitis. 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 Cayston 75-milligram Inhalation Solution to treat bronchiectasis, uncomplicated and pseudomonas aeruginosa infection. 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 Pregabalin 25-milligram capsules to treat atypical neuropathic pain. 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 are Lidocaine 5 percent patches to treat tendonitis pain, restless leg syndrome, and neuropathic pain associated with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). 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 noted conditions are off-label uses for the requested drug. The Medicare approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for the treatment of these conditions. Therefore, the 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 Remicade 100-milligram solution to treat rheumatoid arthritis without rheumatoid factor, multiple sites. 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: Favorable

At issue is Diclofenac Sodium 1 percent gel. 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 medical records submitted at reconsideration indicate that Diclofenac Sodium 1 percent gel was prescribed to treat primary osteoarthritis pain of the first carpometacarpal joints in the left and right hands. This is a medically accepted indication for the use for Diclofenac Sodium 1 percent gel outlined in the Medicare approved compendia. The documentation also supports that the plans prior authorization requirements have been satisfied, as the enrollee has a covered diagnosis; the enrollee is over the age of 18-years-old; and the drug is not being used during the peri-operative period in the setting of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. The plan has no quantity limit or step therapy requirements for coverage of the drug. As such, the documentation supports that coverage for the drug can be allowed. 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 Nexletol 180-millgram tablets. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted.During this review, we requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to provide the enrollees diagnosis and address the plans prior authorization coverage requirements. We received the requested documentation and included it in the review.The documentation indicates that Nexletol has been prescribed for the treatment of mixed hyperlipidemia in an enrollee that does not have established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. However, 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 Nurtec 75-milligram oral disintegrating tablets to treat chronic migraines. 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 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 Xifaxan 550-milligram tablets prescribed for small intestinal bacterial overgrowth. 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.At reconsideration a diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea was given. However, no documentation was provided by the prescriber to support this diagnosis. We requested information from the prescriber but no information was received. We are not able to determine whether the requested drug was prescribed for a medically accepted indication. Therefore, the 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: Favorable

At issue is Lidocaine-Prilocaine 2.5-2.5 percent topical cream. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted.During this review, we requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to provide the enrollees diagnosis and address the plans quantity limit requirements. We received the requested documentation and included it in the review.The documentation indicates that Lidocaine-Prilocaine 2.5-2.5 percent topical cream has been prescribed for numbing of the skin covering a medication port prior to chemotherapy treatment in an enrollee who has rectal cancer. As outlined in the Medicare approved compendium, DrugDex, topical Lidocaine-Prilocaine 2.5-2.5 percent cream is indicated for use on normal intact skin as a local analgesic. Therefore, the drug is being used for a medically accepted indication. The use of Lidocaine-Prilocaine 2.5-2.5 percent cream on normal intact skin as a local analgesic is also a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved use for the drug. The plans only prior authorization requirement for coverage of the drug is documentation of an FDA-approved diagnosis. Therefore, the plans prior authorization requirement has been satisfied. The plans quantity limit for the drug is 30 grams per 28 days. While the notes in the case file submitted by the plan indicate that the quantity requested exceeds the plan-defined quantity limit, the submitted prescriber statement and medical records verify that the quantity requested is 30 grams per 28 days. As such, the plans quantity limit has not been exceeded. Therefore, the submitted documentation supports coverage for the drug, as the drug is being used for a medically accepted indication, the plans prior authorization requirement has been met, and the quantity limit has not been exceeded.   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 Hetlioz 20-milligram capsules, 30 capsules per 30 days, to treat circadian rhythm sleep disorder, 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.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.