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

At issue is Trazodone Hydrochloride. 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 a reimbursement request for Aluminum Hydroxide/Magnesium Hydroxide/Simethicone. 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 a reimbursement request for Famotidine 20 milligram tablets. 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 a reimbursement request for Lidocaine 2 percent 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 a reimbursement request for Omeprazole 20 milligram delayed-release capsules. 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 a reimbursement request for Sucralfate 1 gram per 10 milliliter suspension. 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 a reimbursement request for Melatonin. 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 a reimbursement request for Nuedexta 20/10 milligram capsules. 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 compounded drug Tri-Mix-Pge1/Phentolamine/Papaverine prescribed for an unknown diagnosis. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted. The submitted documentation shows the enrollee filled a prescription for the requested compounded 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 (hand written receipts cannot be accepted) 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 Ozempic. 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 Buprenorphine Hydrochloride 8 milligram sublingual tablet to treat chronic pain. 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 costochondritis. 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. Additionally, a tiering exception cannot be considered for a drug that is not Medicare-approved. 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 intermittent low back pain. 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: Favorable

At issue is coverage for Nubeqa 300 milligram tablet, 120 tablets per 30 days to treat non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. 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.The plan has prior authorization requirements for this drug that must be met before coverage will be provided. The submitted documentation supports that all of the plans requirements for coverage have been satisfied. Specifically, the medical records support the medical necessity to treat the patients disease process with Nubeqa. The plan does not require a prior agent trial. Therefore, the plans prior authorization requirements have been met and coverage for the drug is supported.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 Calcium Acetate 667 milligram capsule. 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.Calcium Acetate 667 milligram capsule is a generic drug on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. There are no 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 Tadalafil 5 milligram tablet to treat 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.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 Zolpidem Tartrate 5 milligram tablet to treat insomnia. 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. 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 Amitiza 24 microgram capsule to treat constipation, 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. 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. As this drug is not eligible for Part D coverage, it is not eligible for consideration for a formulary exception. 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 Zeposia 0.92 milligram capsule, 90 capsules per 90 days, to treat ulcerative pancolitis. The Part D plan approved coverage for the drug but denied the request for a 90 day supply. 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 limited to a recurring 30-day supply by the plan. The submitted documentation does not support the medical necessity for an exception to the plans quantity limit for this drug. A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the plan is not required to cover more than a recurring 30-day supply of the requested drug.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a tiering exception request for Ozempic 2 milligram per 3 milliliter (0.25 or 0.5 milligram per dose) solution pen-injector 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.Ozempic 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 Spiriva Respimat 2.5 microgram inhaler to treat asthma. 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.Spiriva Respimat 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 Budesonide nebulizer soluiton. 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 documentation indicates that the requested drug is going to be used with a nebulizer in the enrollees home or home-like setting. Medicare classifies nebulizers 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 supplies necessary for the effective use of durable medical equipment, including drugs and biologicals, which must be put directly into the equipment. Any drug available for coverage under Medicare Part B cannot be covered under Part D, per Medicare rules. Therefore, the requested nebulizer drug is not eligible for 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. Please submit the request for coverage through Medicare Part B.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is reimbursement for compounded medication Fluorouracil powder, Salicylic powder acid, and Polysorbate liquid prescribed for an 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 coverage for Nurtec 75 milligram oral dissolving tablet to treat migraine headaches. 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: Partially Favorable

At issue is coverage and a tiering exception request for Dupixent 300 milligram per 2 milliliter solution prefilled syringe, 4 milliliters per 28 days, to treat chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP). The Part D plan denied the request for coverage and a tiering exception because the prescriber indicated that the drug was not going to be given in combination with another agent to treat the enrollees chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis. 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 clarify the condition being treated and to address the plans prior authorization coverage criteria for the drug. We received additional documentation and included it in the review. 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. As outlined in the Medicare approved compendia, Dupixent is indicated as an add-on maintenance treatment for adults with inadequately controlled chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis. At reconsideration, the submitted medical records clarify and confirm that the Dupixent is going to be in combination with another agent(s) for the treatment of the enrollees chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis. Therefore, the drug is being prescribed for a medically accepted indication. The plan has prior authorization requirements for this drug that must be met before coverage will be provided. The newly submitted documentation supports that all of the plans requirements for coverage have been satisfied. Specifically, the enrollee has a diagnosis of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis; the enrollee has had an inadequate response to two months of treatment with an intranasal corticosteroid; the drug is going to be used in combination with another agent for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis; and the drug has been prescribed by an otolaryngologist. Therefore, the plans prior authorization requirements have been met and coverage for the drug is supported.However, Dupixent is included on Tier 5 of the plans formulary. Tier 5 of the formulary is the tier reserved for specialty drugs. The Specialty tier is exempt from tiered cost-sharing expectations, per Medicare rules. Therefore, this drug is not eligible for a tiering exception. A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is eligible for Part D coverage. However, the drug is not eligible for a tiering exception.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Tadalafil 5 milligram tablet to treat 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. 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 Tagrisso 80 milligram tablet to treat metastatic non-small cell lung cancer with EGFR V843I exon 21 mutation. 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.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. Per Federal Drug Administration and Compendia, Tagrisso is not indicated with chemotherapy (or as a single agent) in EGFR V8431 mutated non-small cell lung cancer. The Medicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations to support using the requested drug, as prescribed, to treat the noted condition. The submitted documentation does not include clinically relevant, peer-reviewed medical literature from a Medicare-approved journal to support this appeal. Therefore, the available documentation supports that the requested drug is not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication, as Medicare defines.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.