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

At issue is Auryxia 210-milligram tablet to treat hyperphosphatemia associated with chronic kidney 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 requested drug is not on the plans 2022 formulary. In order to grant an exception for a drug not on the plans formulary, alternative formulary drugs on the 2022 formulary (Velphoro) 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.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 2022 Plan Year tiering exception request for Eliquis 5-milligram tablets as anti-coagulation therapy for prophylaxis against deep vein thromboses. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.Eliquis is a brand drug on Tier 3 of the plans 2022 formulary. There are no brand drugs of the same type on the lower tiers of the plans 2022 formulary to treat the same diagnosis. Therefore, this drug is not eligible for a 2022 Plan Year tiering exception.A physician reviewer determined that the tiering exception criteria are not met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a tiering exception request for Livalo 4-milligram tablet to treat an unstated 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.Livalo is a brand 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: Unfavorable

At issue is Skyrizi 15-milligram per milliliter auto-injection pen to treat palmoplanar 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 plan has prior authorization requirements for this drug. These requirements must be met before coverage can be extended. The submitted documentation does not satisfy the plans coverage criteria.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

At issue is Inqovi 35-milligram tablets to treat myelodysplastic 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 documentation indicates the prescriber ordered the drug at issue for the enrollees diagnosis. The Medicare approved compendia contain a citation to support the use of the drug for the noted diagnosis. As such, the submitted documentation supports the drug was prescribed for a medically accepted indication. The plan has prior authorization coverage criteria that must be met prior to approval. The enrollee satisfies the Plans coverage criteria. The submitted documentation indicates the drug at issue will be used as monotherapy for the enrollee's noted diagnosis. In addition, the enrollee has not had disease progression while on hypomethylators. 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 a 2022 Plan Year tiering exception request for Narcan 4-milligram/0.1-milliliter nasal spray as prophylaxis against opioid overdose. 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.Narcan is a brand drug on Tier 3 of the plans 2022 formulary. There are no brand drugs of the same type on the lower tiers of the plans 2022 formulary to treat the same diagnosis. Therefore, this drug is not eligible for a 2022 Plan Year tiering exception.A physician reviewer determined that the tiering exception criteria are not met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Rosula 10-4.5 percent wash to treat skin lesions. 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 denied the request for coverage because drugs classified as part of the Food and Drug Administrations (FDAs) Drug Efficacy Study Implementation program cannot be covered by the Medicare Part D drug benefit. These drugs are considered to be less than effective per FDA review. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

At issue is Mumps Measles Rubella II vaccine and administration fee 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 at the health department. The plans 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 physicians office indicating receipt of payment from the enrollee. Therefore, we determined that the plan is required to reimburse the enrollee for their share of the cost for the vaccine and administration fee.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Partially Favorable

At issue is reimbursement for Hepatitis A/B combo vaccine and administration fee prescribed for vaccination for dates of service January 4, 2021, February 8, 2021, and July 15, 2021. 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. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The plan submitted documentation showing the enrollee was reimbursed for the plans share of the cost for the requested vaccine and administration fee for date of service February 8, 2021. The reimbursement was based on the amount paid for the drug, less  copayment, less the amount the physician charges, and the plans approved amount. Therefore, we determined that the plan is not required to provide further reimbursement for date of service February 8, 2021. However, the documentation submitted includes a statement from the health department indicating receipt of payment from the enrollee for dates of service January 4, 2021 and July 15, 2021 for the requested vaccine and administration fee. Therefore, we determined that the plan is required to reimburse the enrollee for their share of the cost for the vaccine and administration fee for dates of service January 4, 2021 and July 15, 2021.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Partially Favorable

At issue is reimbursement for Varicella vaccine and administration fee prescribed for vaccination for dates of service January 4, 2021 and February 8, 2021. 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. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The plan submitted documentation showing the enrollee was reimbursed for the plans share of the cost for the requested vaccine and administration fee for date of service February 8, 2021. The reimbursement was based on the amount paid for the drug, less  copayment, less the amount the physician charges, and the plans approved amount. Therefore, we determined that the plan is not required to provide further reimbursement for date of service February 8, 2021. However, the documentation submitted includes a statement from the health department indicating receipt of payment from the enrollee for date of service January 4, 2021 for the requested vaccine and administration fee. Therefore, we determined that the plan is required to reimburse the enrollee for their share of the cost for the vaccine and administration fee for date of service January 4, 2021.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Pantomed 40 milligram tablet prescribed for the treatment of a stroke. 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. The submitted documentation shows the enrollee purchased the drug from a pharmacy outside of the United States. Drugs purchased outside of the United States are excluded from coverage. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Botox 200-unit Solution Reconstituted to treat chronic migraine without aura, intractable, without status migrainosus. 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.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 Deferasirox 125-milligram Tablet for Suspension to treat disorder of iron metabolism, unspecified. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The 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 Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride 10-milligram tablets to treat spinal stenosis. 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 Eliquis 5-milligram tablet for anticoagulation for an patient with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, prophylaxis of cerebrovascular accident and systemic embolism. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.Eliquis 5-milligram tablet 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 Ipratropium Bromide-Albuterol Sulfate nebuilzer solution. 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. Based on the information provided, we determined the drug may be eligible for coverage under Part B under Medicare rules.The plan does not offer supplemental (additional) coverage for this drug. If the enrollee purchased drugs that are excluded, the enrollee must pay for them. 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 a tiering exception request for Entresto 24-26-milligram tablet to treat chronic systolic congestive heart failure and viral cardiomyopathy. 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.Entresto 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 a tiering exception request for Jardiance 10-milligram tablet to treat chronic systolic congestive heart failure. 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.Jardiance is a brand drug on Tier 6 (Select Care) of the plans formulary. The plans Tier 6 is the lowest tier for this plan, even lower than Tier 1. 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 Guanfacine Hydrochloride 2-milligram tablets to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in an adult enrollee. 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 Dupixent 300-milligrams per 2-milliliter syringe to treat atopic dermatitis. The Part D plan denied the request We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The 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.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 Ondansetron Hydrochloride 4-milligram tablets to treat nausea and vomiting. 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 Uloric 40-milligram tablets to treat gout. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The drug at issue is not on the plans formulary. The prescriber provided patient specific clinical rationale supported by documentation, indicating why the formulary alternatives, required by the plan, would likely not be as effective as the requested drug for this diagnosis, and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm. Therefore, an exception to the plans formulary coverage criteria is medically necessary.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Buprenorphine Hydrochloride 2-milligram sublingual tablet 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 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/Prilocaine 30/6 cream prescribed for the treatment of abdominal and breast wounds. 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. According to Medicare rules, the requested drug cannot be approved for separate payment under Part D when it's for treatment on a patient who is receiving dialysis. Medicare records show the enrollee is actively receiving dialysis. Therefore, the requested drug must be billed by the renal dialysis facility.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Lumakras 120-milligram tablets to treat non-small cell lung cancer; Kirsten RAt Sarcoma G12V mutation, as initial therapy. 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 Hyalgan 20-milligram/2-milliliter injection. 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.Viscosupplements are excluded from Medicare Part D coverage. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

At issue is Calcitriol 0.25-microgram capsule. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.At reconsideration a diagnosis of hypocalcemia secondary to parathyroidectomy was given. The documentation submitted by the prescriber supports the drug is prescribed for a medically accepted indication, not secondary to dialysis. Therefore, the drug is eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is eligible for Part D coverage.