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

At issue is reimbursement for Freestyle Libre 2 Sensor. The Part D plan denied the request for reimbursement. Medicare classifies home blood glucose monitors as durable medical equipment. Medicare rules state that Medicare Part B pays for the rental and purchase of durable medical equipment. Additionally, payment will be made under Medicare Part B for the supplies necessary for the effective use of durable medical equipment, including THE ITEM. Any drug/item available for coverage under Medicare Part B cannot be covered under Part D, per Medicare rules. As such, the requested item is not eligible for Medicare Part D coverage.This decision does not address the medical necessity of the item. It only establishes that payment cannot be made under the Medicare Part D benefit. Please submit the request for coverage through Medicare Part B.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Allopurinol 100 milligram tablet prescribed for unspecified 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. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. The submitted documentation shows the plan reprocessed claims for the requested drug and adjusted the amount owed due to rework to fill gaps in the enrollees true out of pocket accumulation. Medicare rules allow a Part D plan to apply deductible, coinsurance, and copayments to covered drugs. We reviewed the plans formulary and Evidence of Coverage. In this case, the enrollee is responsible for their share of any deductible and copay that was not applied at the point of sale.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Benzonatate 200 milligram capsules. 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.Drugs prescribed for the symptomatic relief of coughs 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 Clobazam prescribed for unknown diagnosis. 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 plan reprocessed the enrollees claim for the requested drug and adjusted the amount owed due to a change in the enrollees low income subsidy copayment level. Medicare records indicate the enrollee did not not qualify for low income subsidy copay level for this date of fill. Therefore, we determined the enrollee is responsible for the additional copay.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Onfi prescribed for unknown diagnosis. 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 plan reprocessed the enrollees claim for the requested drug and adjusted the amount owed due to a change in the enrollees low income subsidy copayment level. Medicare records indicate the enrollee did not not qualify for low income subsidy copay level for this date of fill. Therefore, we determined the enrollee is responsible for the additional copay.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Premarin prescribed for unknown diagnosis. 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 plan reprocessed the enrollees claim for the requested drug and adjusted the amount owed due to a change in the enrollees low income subsidy copayment level. Medicare records indicate the enrollee did not not qualify for low income subsidy copay level for this date of fill. Therefore, we determined the enrollee is responsible for the additional copay.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Zonisamide prescribed for unknown diagnosis. 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 plan reprocessed the enrollees claim for the requested drug and adjusted the amount owed due to a change in the enrollees low income subsidy copayment level. Medicare records indicate the enrollee did not not qualify for low income subsidy copay level for this date of fill. Therefore, we determined the enrollee is responsible for the additional copay.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Shingrix vaccination 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. However, the submitted documentation does not include a valid proof of purchase. Therefore, we determined that the plan is not required to provide reimbursement.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Albuterol inhaler. 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 purchased drugs 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 and not eligible for reimbursement.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a reimbursement request for Brimonidine Tartrate 0.2/05 percent ophthalmic solution. The Part D plan denied the request.We received a 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 a valid proof of purchase for the drug at issue. Therefore, the request for reimbursement cannot be granted.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is reimbursement for Amphetamine/Dextroamphetamine ER 30 milligram capsules prescribed for unknown diagnosis. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted. 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, we determined that the plan is not required to provide reimbursement for the requested drug.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Paxlovid 300/100 milligram tablets prescribed for unknown diagnosis. The Part D plan denied the 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 plan submitted documentation that shows the the enrollee's benefit paid 100 percent of the cost of the drug at issue. We determined that the plan calculated the copay correctly and is not responsible for additional reimbursement.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a tiering exception request for Trulicity 1.5 milligram per 0.5 milliliter solution pen-injector. 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.Trulicity is a biologic drug on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. There are no biologic 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. 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 tiering exception request for Trazodone Hydrochloride 300 milligram tablet to treat the enrollee's condition. 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. Trazodone Hydrochloride 300 milligram tablet is a generic drug on Tier 4 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 coverage for Ozempic 0.25 milligram or 0.5 milligram per dose (2 milligrams per 3 milliliters) solution pen-injector to treat prediabetes, obesity, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, and obstructive sleep apnea. 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 Tymlos 2,000 micrograms per milliliter subcutaneous solution to treat osteoporosis without current pathological fracture in a female who is not post-menopausal. 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 a tiering exception request for Mounjaro 2.5 milligrams per 0.50 milliliter subcutaneous solution 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 available documentation. Mounjaro 2.5 milligrams per 0.50 milliliter subcutaneous solution 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. 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 Dupixent 300 milligram per 2 milliliter pen to treat bullous pemphigoid. 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 Budesonide/Formoterol 160/4.5 microgram per actuation to treat chronic obstructive lung 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.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 dyspnea on exertion. 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 chronic obstructive lung disease has been noted. However, this diagnosis was not initially provided to the plan. Medical records have been submitted to validate this additional diagnosis.The requested drug has been prescribed for a medically accepted indication.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 confirm 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 Tretinoin 0.025 percent topical cream to treat mild intermittent asthma, uncomplicated, and contact dermatitis due to solar radiation. 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 Mycophenolic Acid DR (delayed release) 360 milligram tablet to treat autoimmune hepatitis with mild to moderate activity and mild fibrosis, stage 1-2. 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 an unspecified 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 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: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Kerendia 10 milligram tablet to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus with chronic kidney disease, stage 3. 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 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 coverage for Amitriptyline Hydrochloride 10 milligram tablet to treat post-traumatic headache. 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, MicroMedex/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 coverage for Cosentyx 300 milligram dose (150 milligram per milliliter injection) pen 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 Dupixent 300 milligram per 2 milliliter subcutaneous pen injector to treat atopic dermatitis. 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 plan has prior authorization requirements for this drug that must be met before coverage will be provided. The submitted documentation does not indicate 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: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Lidocaine 5 percent topical patch to treat pain due to rheumatoid arthritis. 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 rheumatoid arthritis. 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, new diagnoses of spinal stenosis, unspecified spinal region, and fibromyalgia have been noted. However, these diagnoses were not initially provided to the plan. Furthermore, no medical records have been submitted to validate these additional diagnoses. 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.