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

At issue is coverage for Silodosin 8-milligram capsule to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia with lower urinary tract symptoms. 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, alternative formulary drugs must have been tried and failed, or deemed contraindicated. In this case, the prescriber has not addressed the formulary alternative required by the plan to treat the enrollees condition and provided valid patient specific clinical rationale with supporting documentation as to why the formulary alternative would likely not be as effective as the requested drug and/or would likely cause adverse reactions or other harm. The prescriber has noted that the enrollee is unable to tolerate the alpha-blockers due to the side effects. However, it should be noted that the requested drug is in the same drug class, selective alpha-1-adrenergic blocking agents, as the formulary alternative drug. Therefore, a formulary exception is not supported.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 Vimpat 100 milligram tablet to treat localization-related (focal) (partial) idiopathic epilepsy and epileptic syndromes with seizures of localized onset, not intractable, without status epilepticus. 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 Prednisone 5 milligram tablet prescribed daily for kidney transplant. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. We also researched Medicare systems and reviewed the enrollment data available. We determined that the plan is not required to cover the drug. Medicare records indicate the enrollee received a (ORGAN) transplant, which was covered by Medicare Part A. Therefore, the transplant is considered a Medicare covered transplant and the requested drug is eligible under Medicare Part B. Medicare rules state that a drug covered under Part B cannot be covered under Part D. This decision does not address the medical necessity or appropriateness of the drug. It only establishes that payment cannot be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Lidocaine 5 percent patch to treat chronic back 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.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.Without documentation, 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 Lidocaine 5 percent patch to treat unspecified rotator cuff tear or rupture of right shoulder and rheumatoid arthritis. 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 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 Nucynta 100 milligram tablets to treat opioid dependence. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.We requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support all formulary alternatives were tried and failed or were contraindicated. We received additional documentation and included it in the review.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 coverage for Oxycodone Hydrochloride ER 10 milligram extended-release tablet to treat chronic neuropathic pain due to post laminectomy syndrome. 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 documentation submitted.During this review, we requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support all formulary alternatives were tried and failed or were contraindicated. We received additional documentation and included it in the review.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 and failed, or deemed contraindicated. In this case, the prescriber has not addressed all formulary alternatives to treat the enrollees condition and provided patient specific clinical/medical rationale with supporting documentation as to why each formulary alternative 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.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Sevelamer hydrochloride 800 milligram tablets to treat seconary hypoparathyroidism in an enrollee with end-stage renal disease on dialysis. 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 Lyrica 225 milligram capsule to treat radiculopathy of lumbar region. 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 Gleostine 10 milligram capsule prescribed to treat cerebellar tumor. 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 documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.For the drug at issue to be covered under Medicare Part D, the manufacturer must participate in the Medicare Coverage Gap Discount Program. This manufacturer is not participating in the program; therefore, the drug is excluded from Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Nifedipine 30 milligram tablet for unspecified diagnosis. The Part D plan auto-forwarded 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 plans Evidence of Coverage states, limits and restrictions are placed on drugs that are refilled too soon. The submitted documentation shows the next eligible fill date for the requested drug was February 6, 2022. Therefore, the claim for fill date February 5, 2022 was rejected at point of sale for refill too soon, and the amount charged to the enrollee was an out-of-pocket expense. The enrollee was provided a vacation override for a 90 day supply for fill date February 23, 2022. Therefore, the date of fill February 5, 2022 is not eligible for reimbursement.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Repatha sureclick 140 milligram per milliliter pen injector to treat hyperlipidemia and coronary artery disease. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.We requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records 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 Xylitol powder to be used as part of a compound with Gentamycin solution for irrigation of the nasal passages in an enrollee with chronic bacterial rhinosinusitis causing nasal inflammation and thick purulent crusting. 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.Xylitol powder is a sugar substitute food ingredient and does not meet the definition of a Part D drug. This item is excluded from coverage under Medicare Part D. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Xyosted injector 50/0.5 to treat hypogonadism. The Part D plan denied your 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 indicates the safety and efficacy of testosterone replacement therapy for men with late-onset hypogonadism have not been established.  A physician reviewed your appeal and determined that the plan is not required to cover Xyosted.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Fluticasone Propionate 50 microgram prescribed for 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 plan's Evidence of Coverage states, 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 submitted documentation does not include proof of payment in the form of a receipt showing the amount the enrollee paid for the drug. Therefore, we determined that the plan is not required to provide reimbursement.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Kerendia 10 milligram tablet to treat chronic kidney disease without diabetes . 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 Lantus Solostar 100 units per milliliter insulin pen to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus. 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.Lantus is a biologic drug on Tier 6 of the plans formulary. There are no biologic drugs of the same type on the lower tiers of the plans formulary to treat the same diagnosis. Therefore, this biologic 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 Alvesco 160 micrograms per actuation to treat mild persistent asthma. 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.We requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support all formulary alternatives were tried and failed or were contraindicated. We received additional documentation and included it in the review.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 Dayvigo 5 milligram tablet to treat insomnia. 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 Latuda 60 milligram tablets to treat major depressive disorder. 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 bipolar disorder was given. However, no documentation was provided by the prescriber to support this diagnosis. Relevant medical records were requested but no information was received. We are not able to determine whether the requested drug was prescribed for a medically accepted indication. Therefore, the 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 Modafinil 100 milligram tablet to treat excessive daytime sleepiness due to Parkinsons 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 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 Tadalafil 5 milligram tablet to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia. 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 Shingles 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 is requesting reimbursement for the Shingles vaccine. The plan's Evidence of Coverage states, that if an enrollee pays the full cost of a prescription, the enrollee may submit a request for reimbursement with proof of payment to ask the plan to pay its share of the cost. However, proof of payment by the enrollee in the form of a receipt was not provided. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Nucynta 100 milligram tablet (immediate release) to treat intervertebral disc disorders with radiculopathy, lumbar region and spondylosis without myelopathy or radiculopathy, lumbar region. 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 chronic diagnoses are off-label uses. The Medicare approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for the treatment of these diagnoses. 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 Glipizide 10 milligram tablet prescribed for unspecified diagnosis. The Part D plan auto-forwarded 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 plan submitted documentation that shows the enrollee was still in the deductible stage of the Part D benefit when the requested drug was purchased. The plans Evidence of Coverage states that the enrollee is responsible for the full cost of covered drugs until the deductible amount is satisfied. Therefore, we determined the requested drug was paid correctly and no reimbursement is required by the plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Inbrija inhalation capsule.We received the submitted documentation to perform an independent and de novo review. The submitted documentation does not include a case file from the plan, medical records or evidence of a prescribed diagnosis. Therefore, we cannot determine if the drug was prescribed for a medically accepted indication. A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.