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

At issue is Ubrelvy 100 milligram tablets (30 tablets per 30 days) 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 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 created an authorization to allow 16 tablets per 30 days. The Medicare approved compendia do not support the use of the drug at issue to treat more than 8 migraine days a month. Therefore, the medical necessity for a quantity greater than the plan's allowance has not been met. 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 Dupixent 300 milligram per 2 milliliter injection solution to treat nasal polyposis with chronic sinusitis. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The use of the requested drug to treat the provided diagnosis is an off-label use. The Medicare approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for the treatment of this diagnosis. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Lidocaine 5 percent patch to treat other chronic pain, chronic back pain and degenerative T-spine and L-spine disease in an enrollee with multiple sclerosis. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. A request was submitted to the prescriber to clarify the medical diagnosis and medical history and to also provide supporting medical records. A reply from the prescriber was not received. 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: Favorable

At issue is Otezla 30 milligram tablets to treat plaque psoriasis. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The documentation satisfies the plans coverage criteria. The submitted documentation supports the drug at issue was prescribed for plaque psoriasis. The Medicare approved compendia contain citations to support the use of the drug for this condition. Therefore, the drug at issue was prescribed for a medically accepted indication. The prescribing physician is a dermatologist and has attested the enrollee has tried and failed therapy with a biologic.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

We have dismissed your drug benefit request for Calcipotriene because our records show your request does not have a coverage determination by the plan. You must first submit your drug benefit request to the plan; if they review your case and make an unfavorable or a partially favorable decision, you may then have appeal rights to file a request for a redetermination (first level of appeal). You may file a request for reconsideration after the plan issues an unfavorable or partially favorable decision to:United States Postal Service (USPS)C2C Innovative Solutions, Inc.Part D Drug ReconsiderationsP.O. Box 44166Jacksonville, FL 32231-4166UPS / FedEx OnlyC2C Innovative Solutions, Inc.Part D QIC301 W. Bay St., Suite 600Jacksonville, FL 32202
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Hydroxyzine Pamoate 25 milligram capsules to treat insomnia. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The use of the requested drug to treat the provided diagnosis is an off-label use. The Medicare approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for the treatment of this diagnosis. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a tiering exception request for Restasis 0.5 percent eye emulsion to treat the enrollee's condition. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.Restasis 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 Methylphenidate Hydrochloride 20 milligram tablets to treat binge eating 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 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 Tazverik 200 milligram tablet to treat acute undifferentiated leukemia with KDM6a mutation. 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 Medicare approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for treatment of the noted condition. The prescriber did not submit any clinically relevant, peer-reviewed medical literature from a Medicare approved journal to support this appeal. Therefore, the requested drug is not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a tiering exception request for Fluticasone/Vilanterol 200 microgram/25 microgram inhalant to treat the enrollee's condition. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.This drug is being provided by the plan under a formulary exception. It is not on the plans formulary but they have agreed to provide it at a cost sharing level assigned to all formulary exceptions. Per Medicare rules, non-formulary drugs are not eligible for a tiering exception.A physician reviewer determined that tiering exception criteria are not met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Kerendia 10 milligram tablets to treat type II diabetes mellitus and proteinuria. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The use of the requested drug to treat the provided diagnosis is an off-label use. The Medicare approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for the treatment of this diagnosis. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Stelara 130 milligram per 26 milliliter (5 milligram per milliliter) solution to treat ulcerative colitis. 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.Stelara 130 milligram per 26 milliliter solution 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 and failed, or deemed contraindicated. In this case, the prescriber has not addressed the formulary alternatives required by the plan to treat the enrollees condition and provided patient specific clinical rationale as to why each formulary alternative would likely not be as effective as the requested drug and/or would likely cause adverse reactions or other harm. Therefore, the formulary exception criteria have not 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: Favorable

At issue is Lidocaine 5 percent patch to treat pain due to diabetic nephropathy. 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 coverage criteria that must be met prior to approval. The criteria indicates the enrollee must have a Food and Drug Administration approved indication. The Medicare approved compendia contain a citation to support the use of the drug for the enrollees noted diagnosis. Therefore, the documentation satisfies the plan's prior authorization 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 Tacrolimus 0.1 percent ointment to treat rosacea. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The use of the requested drug to treat the provided diagnosis is an off-label use. The Medicare approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for the treatment of this diagnosis. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Calcipotriene 5 percent topical cream to treat actinic keratosis/actinic damage. 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 a tiering exception request for Synthroid 75 microgram tablets to treat hypothyroidism in an enrollee with thyroid cancer. 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.Synthroid 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 coverage for Viberzi 75 milligram tablet to treat irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea. 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 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 and failed, or deemed contraindicated. In this case, the prescriber has not provided sufficient patient specific clinical rationale with supporting medical records as to why each formulary alternative required by the plan would likely not be as effective as the requested drug; would likely cause adverse reactions or other harm; and/or has been tried and failed. Therefore, the formulary exception criteria have not 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 a tiering exception request for Creon DR (delayed release) 36,000 unit capsule to treat exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. 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.Creon DR 36,000 unit capsule is a biologic drug on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. There are no biologics of the same type to treat the noted condition on the lower tiers of the plans formulary. If there are no biologics of the same type on a lower tier, the biologic 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

At issue is a tiering exception request for Dovato 50 milligram/300 milligram tablets to treat human immunodeficiency virus. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.This drug is being provided by the plan at the cost sharing level of the Specialty tier. Specialty tier drugs are not available for a tiering exception per Medicare rules. A physician reviewer determined that tiering exception criteria are not met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Cresemba 186 milligram capsules for fungal infection prophylaxis in an enrollee with graft versus host 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 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 coverage for Buprenorphine Hydrochloride 8 milligram sublingual tablets, 90 tablets per 30 days, prescribed as maintenance therapy for opioid dependence. The Part D plan denied the request for coverage because the following prior authorization requirement was not met: coverage of this drug for maintenance therapy of opioid dependence is limited to patients who have experienced an intolerance to Naloxone or require Buprenorphine during pregnancy.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 statement and medical records submitted at reconsideration confirm that the plans coverage requirements have been satisfied. The submitted documentation includes progress notes from a physician office visit dated June 4, 2020, which indicate that the enrollee is being treated for opioid dependence. Additionally, it is noted in the progress notes that the enrollee tried Naloxone and the drug caused bilateral lower extremity edema. Due to the enrollee's intolerance of the drug, the prescriber discontinued Naloxone and prescribed Buprenorphine. As such, the documentation submitted at reconsideration validates that the plans prior authorization requirements for the requested drug have been met 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 Testosterone 1.62 percent gel to treat testicular hypofunction. 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 satisfies the plans coverage criteria. The submitted documentation supports the claim at issue is for initiation of therapy. The prescriber has submitted laboratory results that show two morning testosterone levels that are less than the reference range for the lab.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 coverage for Methylphenidate Hydrochloride ER (extended release) OSM (osmotic release) 36 milligram extended release tablet to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. 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 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 and failed, or deemed contraindicated. In this case, the prescriber has not addressed the formulary alternative required by the plan to treat the enrollees condition and provided patient specific clinical rationale as to why this formulary alternative would likely not be as effective as the requested drug and/or would likely cause adverse reactions or other harm. Therefore, the formulary exception criteria have not 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 Diazepam 5 milligram tablets to treat anxiety and insomnia. 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 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 coverage for Budesonide ER (extended release) 9 milligram tablet to treat active Crohn's disease. The Part D plan denied the request for coverage because the plans prior authorization requirements were not met.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 Budesonide ER in tablet form (the brand drug, Uceris) for the treatment of this condition. Therefore, the drug is being prescribed for a non-medically accepted indication and is not eligible for Part D coverage. Since the drug is not eligible for coverage, the plans prior authorization requirements are not relevant to this review.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 Hydroxyzine Hydrochloride 25 milligram tablet to treat psychophysiological insomnia. 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.