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

At issue is RX XXX1939 prescribed for an 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. The submitted documentation shows the enrollee requested the plan to provide reimbursement for RX XXX1939. 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. However, there is missing information needed to consider the request. The documentation provided includes a receipt. The documentation does not include the drug name, drug dosage, quantity of drug, the National Drug Code (NDC), 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 documentation.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is RX XXX1942 prescribed for an 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. The submitted documentation shows the enrollee requested the plan to provide reimbursement for RX XXX1942. 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. However, there is missing information needed to consider the request. The documentation provided includes a receipt. The documentation does not include the drug name, drug dosage, quantity of drug, the National Drug Code (NDC), 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 documentation.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is RX XXX5837 prescribed for an 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. The submitted documentation shows the enrollee requested the plan to provide reimbursement for RX XXX5837. 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. However, there is missing information needed to consider the request. The documentation provided includes a receipt. The documentation does not include the drug name, drug dosage, quantity of drug, the National Drug Code (NDC), 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 documentation.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is RX XXX5999 prescribed for an 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. The submitted documentation shows the enrollee requested the plan to provide reimbursement for RX XXX5999. 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. However, there is missing information needed to consider the request. The documentation provided includes a receipt. The documentation does not include the drug name, drug dosage, quantity of drug, the National Drug Code (NDC), 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 documentation.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is RX XXX6126 prescribed for an 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. The submitted documentation shows the enrollee requested the plan to provide reimbursement for RX XXX6126. 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. However, there is missing information needed to consider the request. The documentation provided includes a receipt. The documentation does not include the drug name, drug dosage, quantity of drug, the National Drug Code (NDC), 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 documentation.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is RX XXX6130 prescribed for an 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. The submitted documentation shows the enrollee requested the plan to provide reimbursement for RX XXX6130. 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. However, there is missing information needed to consider the request. The documentation provided includes a receipt. The documentation does not include the drug name, drug dosage, quantity of drug, the National Drug Code (NDC), 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 documentation.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Engerix-B injection prescribed for hepatitis B 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. Medicare rules state Medicare Part B pays for hepatitis B vaccine if you are at an intermediate or high risk for contracting hepatitis B. The submitted documentation does not indicate the enrollee's diagnosis. Therefore, eligibility for reimbursement cannot be determined. 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.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Shingrix Vaccine vial kit. 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 a discount card was applied to the purchase of the requested drug. Discount cards are intended for out-of-pocket paying consumers and may not be used with commercial health plans or any federal or state funded health care program, such as Medicare or Medicaid. When the enrollees benefit card was used, the enrollee acknowledged and agreed that the discount program will be treated as the primary payor with respect to the medications that are purchased through the discount program. Therefore, the plan is not required to cover or provide reimbursement for the requested drug.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Famotidine 20 milligram tablet. The Part D plan denied the request for additional reimbursement.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 was charged a copay for the requested drug. Medicare rules allow a Part D plan to apply coinsurance and copayments to covered drugs. 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. In this case, documentation was provided showing the Medicare contracted price for the prescription was less than the copay for the tier 1 drug. The plan will only reimburse up to the contracted price of the drug and since the price was less than the enrollees copay, no additional reimbursement is due. We determined the plan calculated reimbursement correctly and is not required to offer additional reimbursement.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Latanoprost 0.005 percent eye drops prescribed for an 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. The submitted documentation shows another insurance provider was applied to the purchase of the requested drug. When the enrollees benefit card for this provider was used, the enrollee acknowledged and agreed that the insurance provider will be treated as the primary payor with respect to the medications that are purchased through their program. Therefore, this purchase is not eligible for reimbursement from the Part D plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

At issue is coverage for Metformin Hydrochloride ER (extended release) 500 milligram tablet, 1 tablet daily, to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic chronic kidney disease. The Part D plan denied the request for coverage stating that this drug was contraindicated because the enrollee had an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) between 15-29 milliliters per minute (mL/min). The plan then auto-forwarded the case to us for reviewWe received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted.The use of the requested drug to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus is a medically accepted indication for the drug outlined in the Medicare approved compendia. However, as outlined in the Medicare approved compendia and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) label for the drug, Metformin Hydrochloride is contraindicated in enrollees with severe renal impairment, defined as an eGFR below 30 mL/min. During this review, we requested documentation from the prescriber to address the noted contraindication for the drug. We received additional documentation and included it in the review. The prescriber has indicated that the enrollee does not have an eGFR between 15-29 mL/min. In addition, the newly submitted documentation includes recent laboratory results obtained on January 16, 2023, that confirm the enrollees eGFR was 49 mL/min. Metformin Hydrochloride is not contraindicated for an enrollee with an eGFR of 49 mL/min. As such, the newly submitted documentation supports coverage for this drug.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 Vyzulta 0.024 percent solution to treat 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. Relevant medical records were not provided. 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 20 milligram tablet for prophylaxis of thromboembolism in an enrollee with atrial fibrillation. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.Xarelto 20 milligram tablet is a brand drug on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. There are no 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 Eszopiclone 3 milligram tablet. The Part D plan denied the request for coverage because the drug was not on the plans formulary and the documentation did not support a formulary exception. 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 submitted documentation indicates that the requested drug has been prescribed to treat restless leg syndrome. However, this condition is an off-label use for the requested drug. The Medicare approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug for the treatment of restless leg syndrome. 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, a formulary exception is not relevant to this case.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 Jardiance 10 milligram tablet. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we 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 lowest copay amount allowed by Medicare rules for preferred brand drugs based on the enrollee qualifying for the Low-Income Subsidy (LIS). Per Medicare rules, these drugs are not eligible for a tiering exception since drugs approved for LIS members are already provided at the lowest cost available.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 Novolog 100 units per milliliter vial. 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 biologic is being provided by the plan at the lowest copay amount allowed by Medicare rules for preferred brand drugs based on the enrollee qualifying for the Low-Income Subsidy (LIS). Per Medicare rules, these biologics are not eligible for a tiering exception since drugs approved for LIS members are already provided at the lowest cost available.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 Restasis 0.05 percent eye emulsion. 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 lowest copay amount allowed by Medicare rules for preferred brand drugs based on the enrollee qualifying for the Low-Income Subsidy (LIS). Per Medicare rules, these drugs are not eligible for a tiering exception since drugs approved for LIS members are already provided at the lowest cost available.A physician reviewer determined that tiering exception criteria are not met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Mar-Cof Codeine Phosphate Guaifenesin expectorant 225/7.5 milligram per 5 milliliter liquid to treat cough. 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 the symptomatic treatment of cough and colds 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 Bromfenac Sodium 0.075 percent prescribed for an unspecified 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. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. Medicare rules state that drug claims must include a valid National Drug Code (NDC) that is listed with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). We researched Medicare resources and found that the NDC provided for the compounded drug is not listed with the FDA. Therefore, the drug is excluded from coverage under Medicare Part D and not eligible for reimbursement. This decision does not concern the medical necessity or appropriateness of the requested drug. It only establishes if payment can be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Moxifloxacin Hydrochloride 0.5 percent prescribed for an unspecified 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. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. Medicare rules state that drug claims must include a valid National Drug Code (NDC) that is listed with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). We researched Medicare resources and found that the NDC provided for the compounded drug is not listed with the FDA. Therefore, the drug is excluded from coverage under Medicare Part D and not eligible for reimbursement. This decision does not concern the medical necessity or appropriateness of the requested drug. It only establishes if payment can be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Prednisolone Sodium Phosphate 1 percent powder prescribed for an unspecified 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. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. Medicare rules state that drug claims must include a valid National Drug Code (NDC) that is listed with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). We researched Medicare resources and found that the NDC provided for the compounded drug is not listed with the FDA. Therefore, the drug is excluded from coverage under Medicare Part D and not eligible for reimbursement. This decision does not concern the medical necessity or appropriateness of the requested drug. It only establishes if payment can be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Pimecrolimus 1 percent cream to treat frontal fibrosing alopecia. 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 a tiering exception request for Hydrocodone/Acetaminophen 10/325 milligram tablet to treat chronic 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.Hydrocodone/Acetaminophen is a generic drug on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. The prescriber has not indicated if all alternatives required by the plan have been tried and failed, or why the plans lower tiered drugs would likely not be as effective as the requested drug. Therefore, this drug is not eligible for a tiering exception.A physician reviewer determined that tiering exception criteria are not met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

At issue is Nurtec 75 milligram oral disintegrating tablet for the prophylaxis of chronic migraine headache. 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 prescriber clarified the medical history in the request for reconsideration. The prescriber states the enrollee has greater than or equal to 4 but less than 15 migraine headache days per month (prior to initiating a migraine preventive medication) and has tried at least two standard prophylactic pharmacologic therapies, at least one drug each from a different pharmacologic class (for example, anticonvulsant, beta-blocker), and has had inadequate responses to those therapies. A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is eligible for Part D coverage.