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

At issue is a tiering exception request for Trulicity 1.5 milligrams per 0.5 milliliters to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. Trulicity is a biologic on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. There are no biologics of the same type on the lower tiers of the plans formulary to treat the same diagnosis. Therefore, this biologic is not eligible for a tiering exception. A physician reviewer determined that the tiering exception criteria are not met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a tiering exception request for Roflumilast 500 microgram tablet to treat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 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.Roflumilast is a generic drug on Tier 4 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 Lyumjev 100 unit per milliliter vial to treat type 1 diabetes. 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 submitted documentation indicates that the requested drug is being administered via a home infusion pump. Medicare classifies home infusion pumps 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 that must be put directly into the equipment, such as insulin. Any drug available for coverage under Medicare Part B cannot be covered under Part D, per Medicare rules. As such, the requested drug 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. It should be noted the requested drug has already been approved under the enrollees Medicare Part B coverage benefit through December 31, 2023. Please submit the request for coverage through Medicare Part B or ask the pharmacist to bill the drug through the enrollees Humana Part B plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Temazepam 30 milligram capsule to treat an unknown 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.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 submitted documentation does not include medical records or evidence of a prescribed diagnosis. This information was requested by the Part D plan with no response from the prescriber/prescribers office. The documentation submitted at reconsideration also 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 a tiering exception request for Clobetasol Propionate 0.05 percent solution. 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.Clobetasol Propionate 0.05 percent solution is a generic drug on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. The prescriber has not provided patient-specific clinical rationale as to why all of the 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. As such, 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 Buprenorphine 10 micrograms per hour patch to treat cancer-related pain. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The requested drug is not on the plans formulary. In order to grant an exception for a drug not on the plans formulary, alternative formulary drugs must have been tried, failed, or deemed contraindicated. In this case, the documentation does not support why the formulary alternatives, required by the plan would likely not be as effective for this diagnosis, and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Ipratropium/Albuterol 0.5/3 milligrams per milliliter administered via a nebulizer. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. Based on the information provided, we determined the drug may be eligible for coverage under Part B under Medicare rules.The plan does not offer supplemental (additional) coverage for this drug. If the enrollee purchased drugs that are excluded, the enrollee must pay for them. This decision does not address the medical necessity or appropriateness of the drug. It only establishes that payment cannot be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Methylphenidate LA 30 milligram extended release biphasic capsule to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The requested drug is not on the plans formulary. In order to grant an exception for a drug not on the plans formulary, alternative formulary drugs must have been tried, failed, or deemed contraindicated. In this case, the documentation does not support why the formulary alternatives, required by the plan would likely not be as effective for this diagnosis, and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Saphnelo 300 milligrams per 2 milliliter injection to treat systemic lupus erythematosus glomerulonephritis syndrome. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The use of the requested drug to treat the provided diagnosis is an off-label use. The Medicare approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for the treatment of this diagnosis. Therefore, the requested drug(s) is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Repatha Sureclick 140 milligram per milliliter solution auto-injector to treat hyperlipidemia in an enrollee with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The Part D plan denied the request.  We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. The requested drug is not on the plans formulary. In order to grant an exception for a drug not on the plans formulary, alternative formulary drugs must have been tried, failed, or deemed contraindicated. In this case, the documentation does not support why the formulary alternatives, required by the plan would likely not be as effective for this diagnosis, and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm. A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a tiering exception request for Pyridostigmine 60 milligram tablet to treat myasthenia gravis. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.Pyridostigmine is a generic drug on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. There are no generic drugs of the same type on the lower tiers of the plans formulary to treat the same diagnosis. Therefore, this drug is not eligible for a tiering exception.A physician reviewer determined that the tiering exception criteria are not met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Aimovig 140 milligram per milliliter auto-injector for migraine prophylaxis. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The plan has prior authorization requirements for this drug. These requirements must be met before coverage can be extended. The submitted documentation does not satisfy the plans coverage criteria.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Repatha Sureclick 140 milligram per milliliter 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 documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.We requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support all formulary alternatives were tried and failed or were contraindicated. However, we did not receive the requested information.At reconsideration a diagnosis of pure hypercholesterolemia was given. However, no documentation was provided by the prescriber to support this diagnosis. We requested information from the prescriber, but no information was received. We are not able to determine whether the requested drug(s) was prescribed for a medically accepted indication. Therefore, the drug(s) is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D. A formulary exception cannot be allowed for a drug that has not 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 Advair Diskus 50/100 microgram per actuation inhalation disk to treat asthma. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.We requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support all formulary alternatives were tried and failed or were contraindicated. However, we did not receive the requested information.The requested drug is not on the plans formulary. In order to grant an exception for a drug not on the plans formulary, alternative formulary drugs must have been tried, failed, or deemed contraindicated. In this case, the documentation does not support why the formulary alternatives, required by the plan would likely not be as effective for this diagnosis, and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Amitiza 24 microgram capsule. The Part D 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 submitted documentation does not include medical records or evidence of a prescribed diagnosis. During this review, a request was submitted to the prescriber to provide the diagnosis and supporting medical records and to address the plans alternative formulary drugs to treat the enrollees condition. The prescriber did not respond to the request. 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 Tenivac 0.5 milliliter solution to treat your 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 documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. The plan has prior authorization requirements for this drug. These requirements must be met before coverage can be extended. The submitted documentation does not satisfy the plans coverage criteria. A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Colchicine 0.6 milligram tablet prescribed for an 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 plan submitted documentation that shows the enrollee was still in the deductible stage of the Part D benefit when the requested drug was purchased. The plans Evidence of Coverage states that the enrollee is responsible for the full cost of covered drugs until the deductible amount is satisfied. Therefore, we determined that no reimbursement is required by the plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Prednisolone Acetate 1 percent, Moxifloxacin 0.5 percent, Bromfenac Sodium 0.075 percent ophthalmic solution compound prescribed to treat an 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.Drugs that fall into the category of bulk powders do not meet the definition of a Part D drug. The requested drug is consistent of bulk powder ingredients and is excluded from coverage under Part D. This decision does not address 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 Neurin-SL (sublingual) 600/600 microgram tablet. 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.Neurin-SL is a prescription vitamin and/or mineral supplement. Prescription vitamin and mineral products are excluded from coverage under Medicare Part D. This is regardless of whether the vitamin or mineral product is being prescribed to correct a deficiency or to treat a disease process. As such, 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 cataract surgery. The Part D plan denied the request.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 cataract surgery is considered a medical service and does not meet the definition of a Part D drug. Therefore, the requested service is excluded from coverage under the Part D benefit and not eligible for reimbursement. The plan has indicated that the surgery may be covered by your Medicare health plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a reimbursement request for Butalbital/Acetaminophen/Caffeine 50/300/40 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, linking the prescription number to the drug at issue. Therefore, the request for reimbursement cannot be granted. A formulary exception cannot be granted as the drug was purchased prior to coverage criteria being approved.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Vancomycin Hydrochloride 125 milligram capsule prescribed for an unspecified diagnosis. The Part D plan denied the enrollees request for additional reimbursement.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 claim for the requested drug was approved and copayment was charged correctly to the enrollee at the point of sale. The plans Evidence of Coverage indicates reimbursement is calculated based on the total cost of the drug, minus the required deductible, copayment or coinsurance amount, and minus the difference between what the plan approves for the drug and what the pharmacy charges. We determined no further reimbursement is required by the plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Shingrix 50 microgram per 0.5 milliliter injection prescribed for vaccination. 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 the requested drug from a preferred pharmacy for an amount that is equal to the required copayment amount. The plans Evidence of Coverage indicates reimbursement is calculated based on the total cost of the drug, minus the required copayment amount, and minus the difference between what the plan normally pays for the drug and what the pharmacy charged. The plan paid its share of the cost for the tier 3 vaccine and the enrollee was responsible for the $47.00 copay. We determined the copay for was calculated correctly and no further reimbursement is required by the plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Leqvio 284 milligram per 1.5 milliliter solution. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the submitted documentation to perform an independent and de novo review.The submitted documentation does not include medical records or evidence of a prescribed diagnosis. Therefore, it cannot be determined if the drug was prescribed for a medically accepted indication. A formulary exception cannot be allowed for a drug that has not 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 Lidocaine 5 percent patch prescribed for musculoskeletal pain after an auto accident. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The use of the requested drug to treat the provided diagnosis is an off-label use. The Medicare approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for the treatment of this diagnosis. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D. This decision does not speak to the medical necessity of this drug; it speaks to whether the Part D drug plan is responsible for payment under the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) rules.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Lidocaine 5 percent patch prescribed for effusion, left elbow and pain in unspecified knee. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The use of the requested drug to treat the provided diagnosis is an off-label use. The Medicare approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for the treatment of this diagnosis. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D. This decision does not speak to the medical necessity of this drug; it speaks to whether the Part D drug plan is responsible for payment under the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) rules.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.