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

At issue is coverage for Zolpidem Tartrate extended release (ER) 12.5 milligram tablet to treat insomnia. 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.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 Tamsulosin Hydrochloride 0.4 milligram capsule, 180 capsules per 180 days, to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia. 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 plans quantity limit for the requested drug is a 30 or 90 day supply per fill. The prescriber requested a 180 day supply. The prescriber has not provided patient-specific clinical rational as to why the amount allowed by the plan would be ineffective in treating the diagnosis and/or would be contraindicated. Furthermore, the submitted documentation does not support the medical necessity for an exception to the plans quantity limit for the drug.  A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug at the requested amount is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Trulicity 0.75 milligram per 0.5 milliliter subcutaneous solution to promote weight loss. 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 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 Temazepam 30 milligram capsule # 90 capsule per 9 days, to treat insomnia. 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. 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 coverage for Tadalafil 5 milligram tablet to treat erectile dysfunction. 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.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 Tadalafil 20 milligram tablet to treat erectile dysfunction. 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 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 Tadalafil 5 milligram tablet to treat erectile dysfunction. 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 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 Sulfacetamide Sodium 10 percent topical solution to treat Rosacea. 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 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 Tadalafil 5 milligram tablet to treat male erectile dysfunction. 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 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 Tadalafil 5 milligram tablet to treat erectile dysfunction. 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 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 Sutab 0.225-0.188-1.479 gram tablet for bowel preparation for colonoscopy. 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 a step therapy requirement that must be met before coverage of this drug will be provided. The submitted documentation does not support that the plans step therapy requirement has been satisfied. Furthermore, the documentation does not support the medical necessity for an exception to the plans step therapy requirement.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 Solu-Cortef 100 milligram per 2 milliliter solution act-o-vial to treat secondary adrenal insufficiency. 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.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 Sodium Sulfate-Potassium Sulfate-Magnesium Sulfate 17.5 gram/3.13 gram/1.6 gram per 177 milliliter solution for preparation of bowel for colonoscopy. 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 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 Clonidine Hydrochloride Extended Release (ER) 0.1 milligram tablet to treat essential hypertension. 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 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 Sodium Sulfate/Potassium Sulfate/Magnesium Sulfate solution for a colonoscopy bowel preparation. 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.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 indicate 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 Tadalafil 20 milligram oral tablet to treat erectile dysfunction. 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 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 Sodium Sulfate-Potassium Sulfate-Magnesium Sulfate 17.5 gram/3.13 gram/1.6 gram per 177 milliliter solution for preparation of bowel for colonoscopy. 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 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 Sodium Sulfate/Potassium Sulfate/Magnesium Sulfate 17.5 gram/3.13 gram/1.6 gram per 177 milliliter solution for preparation of bowel for colonoscopy. 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.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 Sodium Sulfate-Potassium Sulfate-Magnesium Sulfate 17.5 gram/3.13 gram/1.6 gram per 177 milliliter solution for preparation of bowel for colonoscopy. 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 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 Mesalamine delayed release (DR) 1.2 gram tablet, # 180 tablets per 30 days, to treat other ulcerative colitis with unspecified complications. 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 plans quantity limit for the requested drug is 120 per 30 days. The prescriber has not provided patient-specific clinical rational as to why the amount allowed by the plan would be ineffective in treating the diagnosis and/or would be contraindicated. Furthermore, the submitted documentation does not support the medical necessity for an exception to the plans quantity limit for the drug.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug at the requested amount is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Sumatriptan Succinate 100 milligram tablet, to treat personal history of other disease of the nervous system and sense organs, history of migraine. 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. The plans quantity limit for the requested drug is 9 per 30 days. The member filled 9 tablets 7/19/23 and then the prescriber requested an additional 9 tablets on 7/21/23. This is over the quantity limit of 9 tablets per 30 days. The prescriber has not provided patient-specific clinical rational as to why the amount allowed by the plan would be ineffective in treating the diagnosis and/or would be contraindicated. Furthermore, the submitted documentation does not support the medical necessity for an exception to the plans quantity limit for the drug.  A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug at the requested amount is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Ozempic 0.25 or 0.5 milligram pen injector to treat pre-diabetes/diabetes prevention. 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 Epidiolex 100 milligram per milliliter injection solution to treat intractable seizure 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. 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 Megestrol 400 milligram per 10 milliliter suspension to treat cachexia due to cerebral vascular accident. 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 Ingrezza 10 milligram capsule to treat tardive dyskinesia. The Part D plan denied the request for coverage.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all available documentation.The 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.