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

At issue is coverage for Tretinoin 0.05 percent cream to treat hidradenitis suppurativa. 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 available documentation.  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 coverage for Imiquimod 5 percent topical cream packet to treat chronic venous insufficiency. 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 available documentation. 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 coverage for Repatha 140 milligram per milliliter solution prefilled syring to treat atherosclerotic heart disease of native coronary artery without angina pectoris and pure hypercholesterolemia, unspecified. 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 available documentation. The requested drug is not on the plans formulary. To grant an exception for a drug that is not on the plans formulary, alternative formulary drugs must have been tried and failed or must be deemed contraindicated. In this case, the prescriber has not provided patient-specific clinical rationale as to why the alternative drugs on the plans formulary 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. Additionally, the submitted documentation does not support that the enrollee has tried and failed all of the formulary alternative drugs. Therefore, the formulary exception requirements have not been met. A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Vitamin D3 1250 microgram capsule to treat vitamin D deficiency . 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 available documentation.Vitamin D3 is a prescription vitamin. Prescription vitamin and mineral products are excluded from coverage under Medicare Part D. This is regardless of whether the vitamin or mineral product is being prescribed to correct a deficiency or to treat a disease process. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from Medicare Part D coverage. This decision does not address the medical necessity 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 coverage for Nexletol 180 milligram tablet to treat hyperlipidemia with a history of stroke needing stroke preventive therapies. 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 available documentation. The Part D plan is responsible for determining whether the requested drug has been prescribed for a medically accepted indication outlined in the Medicare approved compendia. The noted conditions are off-label uses for the requested drug. The Medicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for the treatment of these conditions. Therefore, the drug is being prescribed for non-medically accepted indications. 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 Dexlansoprazole delayed release (DR) 60 milligram capsule to treat atherosclerotic heart disease of native coronary artery without angina pectoris. 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 available documentation. 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 coverage for Lidocaine 5 percent patch to treat disorders of glossopharyngeal nerve, fibromyalgia, cervicalgia, polyneuropathy in diseases classified elsewhere, and chronic pain syndrome. 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 available documentation. 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 coverage for Sodium Citrate/Citric Acid 500/334 milligram per 5 milliliter to treat hypocitraturia and hyperoxaluria with associated chronic kidney disease. 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 available documentation. Sodium Citrate/Citric Acid 500/334 milligram per 5 milliliter has not been found by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to be safe and effective, and the drug product labeling has not been approved by the FDA. Drugs that are not FDA-approved do not meet the definition of a Part D drug and are excluded from Part D coverage. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from Medicare Part D coverage. This decision does not address the medical necessity of the requested drug. It only establishes that payment cannot be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Euflexxa Solution Prefilled Syringe 20 milligrams per 2 milliliter injection solution. The Part D plan denied the request as an excluded drug in the Medicare Part D program.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all available documentation.Euflexxa is a drug that is injected into the knee by a doctor or nurse and is considered a device by the Food and Drug Administration. Therefore, the drug is excluded from coverage under Medicare Part D.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Kerendia 10 milligram tablet to treat chronic kidney disease, stage 3a with protenuria. 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 available documentation.The Part D plan is responsible for determining whether the requested drug has been prescribed for a medically accepted indication outlined in the Medicare approved compendia. The diagnosis initially provided to the plan for the requested drug was chronic kidney disease, stage 3a with protenuria. 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. At reconsideration, a new diagnosis of type 2 diabetes with diabetic chronic kidney disease has been noted. However, this diagnosis was not initially provided to the plan. Furthermore, no medical records have been submitted to validate this additional diagnosis. As such, due to the conflicting information provided and a lack of supporting medical records, it cannot be established that the requested drug has been prescribed for a 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: Favorable

At issue is coverage for Ingrezza 40 milligram capsules to treat tardive dyskinesia. 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 available documentation.The Part D plan is responsible for determining whether the requested drug has been prescribed for a medically accepted indication outlined in the Medicare approved compendia. The use of the requested drug to treat the noted condition is a medically accepted indication for the drug as outlined in the Medicare approved compendium, DrugDex. Therefore, the drug is being prescribed for a medically accepted indication.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 tiering exception request for Flecainide Acetate 50 milligram tablets for the prophylaxis of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation associated with disabling symptoms. 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 available documentation.During this review, we requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support that all lower-tiered drugs to treat the enrollees condition were tried and failed or were deemed contraindicated. We received additional documentation and included it in the review.Flecainide Acetate is a generic drug on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. The prescriber has not provided patient-specific clinical rationale as to why all of the generic drugs of the same type on the lower tiers of the plans formulary to treat the enrollees condition are contraindicated. Additionally, the submitted documentation does not indicate that the enrollee has tried and failed all of the lower-tiered alternative drugs. Therefore, the tiering exception requirements have not been met. A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for a tiering exception.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a request for reimbursement for Paxlovid 100/150 milligram tablet therapy pack prescribed to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). 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 available documentation submitted. The submitted documentation indicates that the requested drug was purchased from a pharmacy or medical office on a cruise ship. Drugs purchased on a cruise ship are considered foreign claims outside of the United States and are excluded from coverage. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from coverage and not eligible for reimbursement.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Oxybutynin Chloride Extended-Release 15 milligram tablet prescribed for an unspecified diagnosis. The Part D plan denied the additional reimbursement 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 that the enrollee is requesting reimbursement for the Oxybutynin Chloride purchased at a network pharmacy. 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 more than the plan allowed. The plan will only reimburse up to the contracted price of the drug, minus any deductible, copay or coinsurance. Therefore, we determined that the plan calculated reimbursement correctly and is not required to offer additional reimbursement.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Flarex 5 milliliter ophthalmic suspension prescribed for the enrollee's condition. The Part D plan auto-forwarded the case to us for review.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 Flarex filled April 3, 2023. 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 Flarex 5 milliliter ophthalmic suspension prescribed for the enrollee's condition. The Part D plan auto-forwarded the case to us for review.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 Flarex filled March 20, 2023. 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 Flarex 5 milliliter ophthalmic suspension prescribed for the enrollee's condition. The Part D plan auto-forwarded the case to us for review.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 Flarex for filled February 24, 2023. 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 Prolensa 0.07 percent ophthalmic solution prescribed for the enrollee's condition. The Part D plan auto-forwarded the case to us for review.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 Prolensa filled February 24, 2023. 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 Prolensa 0.07 percent ophthalmic solution prescribed for the enrollee's condition. The Part D plan auto-forwarded the case to us for review.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 Prolensa filled March 21, 2023. 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 Tropicamide 3 milliliter ophthalmic suspension prescribed for the enrollee's condition. The Part D plan auto-forwarded the case to us for review.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 Tropicamide filled February 24, 2023. 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 coverage for SF 5000Plus 1.1 percent cream to treat the enrollee's condition. The Part D plan auto-forwarded the case to us for review. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all available documentation. During this review, we requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support that all formulary alternatives were tried and failed or were deemed contraindicated. However, the prescriber did not respond to our request.The Part D plan is responsible for determining whether the requested drug has been prescribed for a medically accepted indication outlined in the Medicare approved compendia. The submitted documentation does not include medical records or evidence of a prescribed diagnosis. This information was requested by the Part D plan with no response from the prescriber. The documentation submitted at reconsideration also does not include medical records or evidence of a prescribed diagnosis. As such, there is insufficient documentation available to establish that the requested drug has been prescribed for a 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 E2 0.5 milligram Progesterone micronized powder 200 milligrams per gram anhydrous cream bulk powder compounded drug prescribed for the enrollees condition. The case was auto forwarded by the Part D 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. Drugs that fall into the category of bulk powders do not meet the definition of a Part D drug. The requested drug is considered a bulk powder or is consistent of bulk powder ingredients and is excluded from coverage under Part D. This decision does not address the medical necessity or appropriateness of the requested drug. It only establishes if payment can be made under the Medicare Part D benefit. As such, the Part D plan is not required to reimburse you for the cost of the drug.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Testosterone bulk powder compounded drug 1 milligram per gram anhydrous cream prescribed for the enrollees condition. The case was auto forwarded by the Part D 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. Drugs that fall into the category of bulk powders do not meet the definition of a Part D drug. The requested drug is considered a bulk powder or is consistent of bulk powder ingredients and is excluded from coverage under Part D. This decision does not address the medical necessity or appropriateness of the requested drug. It only establishes if payment can be made under the Medicare Part D benefit. As such, the Part D plan is not required to reimburse you for the cost of the drug.