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

At issue is Omeprazole 40 milligram capsule prescribed for unknown diagnosis. 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 plan provided documentation that shows the requested drug was approved and the enrollee's cost share at the point of sale  was $3.32. The copay calculation was based on an amount that is less than or equal to the required copayment amount. Therefore, we determined the plan calculated the enrollees copay correctly and no further reimbursement is required by the plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Pregabalin 25-milligram capsule to treat lower back pain with sciatica and neuralgia. 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 Tibsovo 250-milligram tablet to treat myeloid fibrosis with myeloid metaplasia. 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. Medicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug as prescribed, for treatment of the noted diagnosis. There was no peer-reviewed, clinically relevant, medical literature from an approved journal submitted 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 TDAP vaccine prescribed for vaccination. The Part D plan denied 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 vaccine was provided by the prescriber and administered in the prescribers office. The plan's Evidence of Coverage states, that 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. However, proof of payment by the enrollee in the form of a receipt was not provided. Therefore, reimbursement criteria has not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Xeljanz 5-milligram tablet to treat scarring alopecia secondary to lichen planopilaris with frontal fibrosing alopecia component. 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 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 condition. 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 Vitamin D2 50,000 IU capsule to treat unknown diagnosis. 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.Drugs prescribed for use as vitamins and minerals are excluded from coverage under Medicare Part D. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Envarsus XR 1-milligram tablets prescribed for rejection prophylaxis following a kidney transplant. 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. We also researched Medicare systems and reviewed the enrollment data available. The records indicate the enrollee received a kidney transplant, which was covered by Medicare Part A. Therefore, the transplant is considered a Medicare covered transplant and the requested drug is eligible under Medicare Part B. Medicare rules state that a drug covered under Part B cannot be covered under Part D. This decision does not address the medical necessity or appropriateness of the drug. It only establishes that payment cannot be made under the Medicare Part D benefit. Please submit the request for coverage to Medicare Part B.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Rocklatan 0.02-0.005-percent eye drops to treat bilateral mixed mechanism 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 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 Belbuca 75-microgram buccal film to treat chronic pain 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. 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 Repatha Pushtronex System Solution Cartridge 420-milligrams/3.5-milliliters to treat hyperlipidemia with clinical atherosclerotic coronary artery disease. The Part D plan denied the request. The requested drug is not on the plans formulary. 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.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 medical records do not support why other drugs on the plans formulary would not work for you.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 Epclusa 400/100 milligram tablets (28 tablets per 28 days) to treat an enrollee for 24 weeks with chronic hepatitis C, genotype 1a, decompensated cirrhosis Child Turcotte Pugh class B, treatment naive, with a viral load of 16,065 IU/ml, end stage renal disease on hemodialysis, who is HIV negative. The enrollee is not a candidate for Ribavirin and is not a candidate for liver transplantation.  The Part D plan denied the request.  In the Redetermination letter from the plan the plan stated that they required an answer to the following question, Has the patient received greater than or equal to 24 weeks of treatment with the requested drug?  In the Reconsideration appeal the prescriber answered this question, stating No and provided supporting medical records.   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 provided 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 Caltrate 600-plus D3 soft chewable tablets to treat chronic hypoparathyroidism and hypocalcemia. 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.Drugs prescribed for use as vitamins and minerals are excluded from coverage under Medicare Part D. In addition, the requested vitamin/mineral is available over the counter. Drugs prescribed that are available over the counter are also excluded from coverage under Medicare Part D. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a tiering exception request for Humira (CF) 40-milligram/0.4-milliliter pen to treat an unspecified diagnosis. The case was auto-forwarded by the plan.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, 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 a tiering exception request for Lantus Solostar 100-unit/milligram pen injector to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus without complications. 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 a tiering exception request for Dexilant DR 60-milligram capsules to treat gastroesophageal reflux 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.Dexilant 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: Favorable

At issue is a request for reimbursement of $30.00 for Nitrofurantoin Mono-Macro 100-milligram capsules purchased on September 5, 2021.  We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted.The submitted documentation includes all of the required information for reimbursement, including a completed claim reimbursement form and proof of payment. The submitted medical records indicate that Nitrofurantoin Mono-Macro, 14 capsules for 7 days, was prescribed for the treatment of a urinary tract infection. This is a medically accepted indication for the drug as outlined in the Medicare approved compendia. The plan has no additional coverage requirements for this drug. The plans quantity limit for the drug is 60 capsules per 30 days, which has not been exceeded. As such, the submitted documentation supports reimbursement of $30.00 for the Nitrofurantoin Mono-Macro capsules purchased on September 5, 2021.  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 Sinemet 25-100-milligram tablet to treat Parkinson's 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.We requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records to support 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 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 tablet to treat 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.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 Oxycodone Hydrochloride ER 20-milligram tablet to treat pancreatic 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.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 Androgel 1.62-percent Gel Pump to treat age related male hypogonadism. The Part D plan denied the request. The requested drug is not on the plans formulary. 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 prescriber first submitted the diagnosis of age related male hypogonadism.   The prescriber then changed the diagnosis to hypogonadotropic hypogonadism.  The medical records submitted with the appeal dated June 9, 2021 do not support the diagnosis of hypogonadotropic hypogonadism.  The records support the diagnosis of age related male hypogonadism.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 Baclofen prescribed for an unknown diagnosis. 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 submitted documentation shows the plan reprocessed claims for the requested drug and adjusted the amount owed due to rework to fill gaps in the enrollees true out of pocket accumulation. Medicare rules allow a Part D plan to apply deductible, coinsurance, and copayments to covered drugs. We reviewed the plans formulary and Evidence of Coverage. In this case, the enrollee is responsible for their share of any deductible and copay that was not applied at the point of sale. We determined the plan is correct in its calculation of additional copay amounts due to reconciliation of the enrollees true out of pocket accumulation.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Compro prescribed for an unknown diagnosis. 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 submitted documentation shows the plan reprocessed claims for the requested drug and adjusted the amount owed due to rework to fill gaps in the enrollees true out of pocket accumulation. Medicare rules allow a Part D plan to apply deductible, coinsurance, and copayments to covered drugs. We reviewed the plans formulary and Evidence of Coverage. In this case, the enrollee is responsible for their share of any deductible and copay that was not applied at the point of sale. We determined the plan is correct in its calculation of additional copay amounts due to reconciliation of the enrollees true out of pocket accumulation.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Hydrocortisone prescribed for an unknown diagnosis. 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 submitted documentation shows the plan reprocessed claims for the requested drug and adjusted the amount owed due to rework to fill gaps in the enrollees true out of pocket accumulation. Medicare rules allow a Part D plan to apply deductible, coinsurance, and copayments to covered drugs. We reviewed the plans formulary and Evidence of Coverage. In this case, the enrollee is responsible for their share of any deductible and copay that was not applied at the point of sale. We determined the plan is correct in its calculation of additional copay amounts due to reconciliation of the enrollees true out of pocket accumulation.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Levoxyl prescribed for an unknown diagnosis. 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 submitted documentation shows the plan reprocessed claims for the requested drug and adjusted the amount owed due to rework to fill gaps in the enrollees true out of pocket accumulation. Medicare rules allow a Part D plan to apply deductible, coinsurance, and copayments to covered drugs. We reviewed the plans formulary and Evidence of Coverage. In this case, the enrollee is responsible for their share of any deductible and copay that was not applied at the point of sale. We determined the plan is correct in its calculation of additional copay amounts due to reconciliation of the enrollees true out of pocket accumulation.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Nucynta prescribed for an unknown diagnosis. 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 submitted documentation shows the plan reprocessed claims for the requested drug and adjusted the amount owed due to rework to fill gaps in the enrollees true out of pocket accumulation. Medicare rules allow a Part D plan to apply deductible, coinsurance, and copayments to covered drugs. We reviewed the plans formulary and Evidence of Coverage. In this case, the enrollee is responsible for their share of any deductible and copay that was not applied at the point of sale. We determined the plan is correct in its calculation of additional copay amounts due to reconciliation of the enrollees true out of pocket accumulation.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Ondansetron orally disintegrating tablet prescribed for an unknown diagnosis. 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 submitted documentation shows the plan reprocessed claims for the requested drug and adjusted the amount owed due to rework to fill gaps in the enrollees true out of pocket accumulation. Medicare rules allow a Part D plan to apply deductible, coinsurance, and copayments to covered drugs. We reviewed the plans formulary and Evidence of Coverage. In this case, the enrollee is responsible for their share of any deductible and copay that was not applied at the point of sale. We determined the plan is correct in its calculation of additional copay amounts due to reconciliation of the enrollees true out of pocket accumulation.