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

At issue is Measles Mumps Rubella(MMR II) vaccine prescribed for vaccination. The case was auto-forwarded by the plan.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 was administered the vaccine at their physicians office. Payment for vaccines including administration fee is required up front when provided at an out of network pharmacy or prescriber's office. We reviewed Medicare resources and found that the National Drug Code submitted is not valid. In addition, there is no receipt showing the enrollee paid the full amount of the vaccine and administration fee, as required by the plans Evidence of Coverage. Therefore, we determined that the plan is not required to reimburse the enrollee for the vaccine and administration fee at this time.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Havrix vaccine prescribed for hepatitis A vaccination. The case was auto-forwarded by the plan.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 was administered the vaccine at their physicians office. Payment for vaccines including administration fee is required up front when provided at an out of network pharmacy or prescriber's office. We reviewed Medicare resources and found that the National Drug Code submitted is not valid. In addition, there is no receipt showing the enrollee paid the full amount of the vaccine and administration fee, as required by the plans Evidence of Coverage. Therefore, we determined that the plan is not required to reimburse the enrollee for the vaccine and administration fee at this time.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is IPOL(Polio) vaccine prescribed for vaccination. The case was auto-forwarded by the plan.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 was administered the vaccine at their physicians office. Payment for vaccines including administration fee is required up front when provided at an out of network pharmacy or prescriber's office. We reviewed Medicare resources and found that the National Drug Code submitted is not valid. In addition, there is no receipt showing the enrollee paid the full amount of the vaccine and administration fee, as required by the plans Evidence of Coverage. Therefore, we determined that the plan is not required to reimburse the enrollee for the vaccine and administration fee at this time.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is reimbursement for Ketamine Hydrochloride powder compound to treat peripheral neuropathy in both feet. 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 that are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are excluded from Medicare Part D coverage. According to the compendia, This drug has not been found by the  FDA to be safe and effective, and the drug product labeling has not been approved by the FDA. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Hetlioz 20 milligram capsule to treat circadian rhythm sleep disorder free run type. The Part D plan denied the request.We performed an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed your appeal carefully. We reviewed all documentation available at the reconsideration level.We requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support the enrollee has satisfied the plans prior authorization coverage criteria. However, we did not receive the requested information.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 Vasculera tablets to treat leg pain and swelling. 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 Cyclophospamide 50 milligram capsule prescribed to treat multiple myeloma. 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 submitted documentation indicates the requested drug is prescribed for the treatment of cancer. Based on the information provided, we determined the drug may be eligible for coverage under Part B under Medicare rules.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Otezla 30-milligram to treat psoriasis vulgaris. 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 provide a diagnosis, to clarify the medical history, and to address the nonformulary exception criteria. A reply from the prescriber was not received. The prescriber has not provided patient specific clinical rationale, supported by documentation, as to why all 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 not medically necessary. 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 50-milligram capsules to treat constant 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 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 Albuterol-Sulfate 2.5 milligram/3 milliliter vial prescribed for the treatment of asthma. 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 requested drug is being administered through a nebulizer in the home setting. Medicare Part B may pay for supplies necessary for the effective use of durable medical equipment, including drugs and biologicals which must be put directly into the equipment in order to achieve the therapeutic benefit of the durable medical equipment. We determined that the Part D plan is not required to cover the requested drug.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a tiering exception request for Sunosi 75-milligram tablets to treat daytime sleepiness due to sleep apnea. 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: Favorable

At issue is Yellow Fever vaccine prescribed for vaccination. The case was auto-forwarded by the plan.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review of this request for coverage. We reviewed all documentation submitted for review, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. The submitted documentation shows the enrollee received the vaccine in the prescribers office. The plan's Evidence of Coverage states, that payment for vaccines including administration fee is required up front from the enrollee when provided at an out-of-network pharmacy or prescribers office. If an enrollee pays the full cost of a prescription, the enrollee may submit a request for reimbursement with proof of payment to ask the plan to pay its share of the cost. The documentation submitted includes a statement from the prescribers office, a copy of the canceled check from the enrollee indicating payment in full for the requested vaccine, and a valid National Drug Code for the vaccine. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria has been met. We determined the plan is required to reimburse the enrollee for their share of the cost of the vaccine and administration fee.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a direct member reimbursement request for Nexplanon 68-milligram implant. 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 excluded from coverage under Medicare Part D. Therefore, reimbursement cannot be allowed.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Magnesium Citrate solution 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 all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.Drugs prescribed that are available Over the Counter 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 Amoxicillin 500 milligram capsule 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.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Carvedilol 25 milligram 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.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Citalopram Hydrobromide 40 milligram 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.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Duloxetine Hydrochloride delayed release 60 milligram 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.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Gabapentin 300 milligram capsule 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.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Hydroxychloroquine 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.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Latanoprost 0.005 percent eye drop 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.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Tamsulosin Hydrochloride 0.4 milligram 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.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Travatan Z 0.004 percent eye drop 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.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Vytorin 10-80 milligram 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.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Armour Thyroid 60-milligrams tablet 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.Drugs that are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are excluded from Medicare Part D coverage. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Dupixent Solution 300-milligram/2-milliliter prefilled syringe to treat chronic sinusitis with nasal polyps. 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 prescriber stated that the requested drug will not be used in combination with any medication for treatment of the noted diagnosis.  The Medicare approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for the treatment of this diagnosis. Therefore, the requested drug(s) is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Lidocaine 5-percent patches for treatment of cervicalgia following a cervical spinal fusion procedure. The case was auto-forwarded by the plan.  We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The submitted medical records indicate that Lidocaine patches have been prescribed for the treatment of cervicalgia following a cervical spinal fusion procedure. However, 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 Intrarosa 6.5-milligram vaginal suppositories to treat symptoms caused by postmenopausal vaginal atrophy. 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, all alternative formulary drugs required by the plan must have been tried, failed, or deemed contraindicated. In this case, the prescriber has not addressed why all formulary alternatives required by the plan to treat the enrollees condition 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.