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

At issue is coverage for Ipratropium/Albuterol 0.5/3 milligram (2.5 milligram base) per 3 milliliter solution for nebulization to treat the enrollees condition. The Part D plan auto forwarded the case to us for review.iWe 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 provided claim information for the enrollee indicating the drug at issue was dispensed at a pharmacy not in the plans network on the date the prescription was filled. In these instances, the enrollee may be responsible for paying the difference between what he/she pays for the drug at the out of network pharmacy and the cost that the plan would cover at an in network pharmacy. The documentation does not support an extreme emergency that would require the drug be immediately supplied and the drug could have been received from a network pharmacy. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for 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 coverage for Zithromax Z-pak 250 milligram tablet to treat the enrollees 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 documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. The plan provided claim information for the enrollee indicating the drug at issue was dispensed at a pharmacy not in the plans network on the date the prescription was filled. In these instances, the enrollee may be responsible for paying the difference between what he/she pays for the drug at the out of network pharmacy and the cost that the plan would cover at an in network pharmacy. The documentation does not support an extreme emergency that would require the drug be immediately supplied and the drug could have been received from a network pharmacy. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for 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 Upneeq 0.1 percent droperette prescribed for myogenic ptosis of bilateral eyelids. The Part D plan denied your request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read your case file carefully. 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, Part D drug plans do not cover drugs produced by a manufacturer who does not participate in the Medicare Gap Discount Program. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services publishes a list of participating brand name drug manufacturers that have signed the Medicare Coverage Gap Discount Agreement. According to the list, the manufacturer, RVL Pharmaceuticals, did not sign the agreement and does not participate in the Medicare Gap Discount Program. Therefore, we determined that the plan is not required to cover the Upneeq. The decision does not address medical necessity of the drug. It only indicates that payment cannot be made under the Medicare Part D ben.efit
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Carafate/Sucralfate. 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 enrollee requested the plan to provide reimbursement for a medication received while in the hospital. The plan's Evidence of Coverage states, 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, the documentation does not include the National Drug Code (NDC), and the prescribing physicians 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 Aluminum Hydroxide/Magnesium Hydroxide/Simethicone 30 milliliter suspension to treat unknown diagnosis. 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 drug at issue is available over the counter without a prescription. Drugs available without a prescription, even when a prescription has been written, are excluded from coverage under Medicare Part D. 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 Sucralfate. 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 enrollee requested the plan to provide reimbursement for a medication received while in the hospital. The plan's Evidence of Coverage states, 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, the documentation does not include the National Drug Code (NDC), and the prescribing physicians 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 RSV vaccine. 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 submitted documentation shows the enrollee received a vaccine. The plans Evidence of Coverage states, if the enrollee pays the full cost of a prescription, then they may submit a request for reimbursement with proof of payment to ask the plan to pay its share of the cost. In this case, proof of payment in the form of a receipt showing the amount that was paid for the drug was not provided. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Eliquis 5 milligram tablets prescribed for an unknown diagnosis. The Part D plan denied/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 submitted documentation shows the enrollee filled a prescription for the requested drug at a network pharmacy. The plans Evidence of Coverage states, if the enrollee pays the full cost of a prescription, then they may submit a request for reimbursement with proof of payment to ask the plan to pay its share of the cost. In this case, proof of payment in the form of a receipt showing the amount that was paid for the drug was not provided. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Droxidopa 100 milligram capsule to treat idiopathic orthostatic hypotension. 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. At reconsideration, the prescriber indicates the drug is to treat neurogenic orthostatic hypotension of unknown etiology. In order for a drug to be covered by Medicare Part D, it must be prescribed for a medically accepted indication outlined in the Medicare approved compendia. 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 and reimbursement for Azelaic Acid/Metronidazole/Interactive 15 percent/1 percent/1 percent cream, prescribed as a compounded drug, to treat the enrollees 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 documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. The plan provided documentation showing the request is for a compounded drug. The requested product is not an approved drug by the United States Food and Drug Administration (USFDA). Products not approved as drugs by the USFDA are excluded from coverage under the Medicare Part D drug benefit. In addition, reimbursement for the requested drug cannot be allowed.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Austedo XR (extended release) 6 milligram/12 milligram/24 milligram oral tablet extended-release titration kit 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.During this review, we requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support that the enrollee has satisfied the plans prior authorization coverage criteria. We received additional documentation and included it in the review.The plan has prior authorization requirements for this drug that must be met before coverage will be provided. The submitted documentation does not support that all of the plans requirements for coverage have been satisfied. Furthermore, the documentation does not support the medical necessity for an exception to the plans prior authorization requirements.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 Abrysvo 0.5 milliliter injection prescribed for prevention of lower respiratory tract disease caused by respiratory syncytial virus, prophylaxis. The Part D plan denied the request for coverage.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 received the vaccine on 8/15/2023, at an in-network pharmacy. Effective 9/1/2023, Abrysvo Injection has been added to the plan's formulary. The plans Evidence of Coverage states that payment for vaccines including administration fee provided at an in-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 enrollee provided the needed information for the vaccine and a receipt indicating full payment was made for the vaccine. Therefore, we determined the reimbursement criteria have been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Paxlovid 300/100 milligram tablet dose pack prescribed for 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 documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. The submitted documentation includes a hospital statement showing the National Drug Code (NDC) for the requested drug at issue is 00069-5321-30. However, this NDC is not listed with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a valid code for the requested drug. Therefore, the drug is excluded from coverage under Medicare Part D. This decision does not concern the medical necessity or appropriateness of the requested drug. It only establishes if payment can be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Primidone 50 milligram oral tablet to treat restless leg 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 available documentation.In order for a drug to be covered by Medicare Part D, it must be prescribed for a medically accepted indication outlined in the Medicare approved compendia. The diagnosis initially provided to the plan for the requested drug was seizure disorder. 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 seizure disorder 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: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Mounjaro 2.5 milligram per 0.5 milliliter pen with a quantity of 4 per 56 days. 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.In order for a drug to be covered by Medicare Part D, it must be 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. 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 coverage for Oriahnn 300/1/0.5 milligram capsules to treat fibroids with heavy bleeding. The Part D plan denied the request for coverage and then 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 the drug is being used for a medically accepted indication and that all formulary alternatives were tried and failed or were deemed contraindicated. We received additional documentation and included it in the review. At reconsideration, the prescriber confirms the enrollee is premenopausal. However, 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 validate 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 a tiering exception request for Breo Ellipta 200/25 micrograms per dose inhaler to treat the enrollees condition. The Part D plan denied the request and then 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.Breo Ellipta is a brand drug on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. There are no brand drugs of the same type to treat the same condition on the lower tiers of the plans formulary. If there are no drugs of the same type on a lower tier, the drug is not eligible for a tiering exception. This decision is for plan year 2024. 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 coverage for Tadalafil 20 milligram tablet to treat male erectile dysfunction. 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. Drugs prescribed to treat sexual or erectile dysfunction are excluded from the Part D coverage. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from Medicare Part D coverage. Note that the plan Evidence of Coverage submitted with the reconsideration appeal states that 'some' erectile dysfunction drugs are covered under their 'enhanced drug coverage.' According to the plan's formulary, additional drug coverage, updated 12/2023, only Sildenafil 100, 25 and 50 milligram tablets are covered to treat erectile dysfunction.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 Wegovy 0.25 milligram per 0.5 milliliter auto injector to treat the enrollees condition. 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.Drugs prescribed to treat obesity and/or to promote weight loss are excluded from the Part D coverage. 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 Miebo 1.338 gram per milliliter ophthalmic solution to treat dry eye 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 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 Hizentra 10 percent solution to treat nonfamilial hypogammaglobulinemia. 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. In order for a drug to be covered by Medicare Part D, it must be prescribed for a medically accepted indication outlined in the Medicare approved compendia. 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 Hydroxyzine Pamoate 25 milligram capsule to treat generalized anxiety disorder. 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 Methylphenidate Hydrochloride 20 milligram tablet to treat treatment resistant depression for an enrollee who is not geriatric or terminally ill. 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. In order for a drug to be covered by Medicare Part D, it must be prescribed for a medically accepted indication outlined in the Medicare approved compendia. 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.