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

At issue is coverage for Dronabinol prescribed for appetite stimulation while the enrollee is receiving chemotherapy. 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 used to treat nausea and vomiting and/or to promote appetite simulation that are given within 48 hours of cancer chemotherapy are covered under Medicare Part B. 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 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: Favorable

At issue is Kerendia 20 milligram tablet to treat chronic kidney disease associated with 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.The documentation satisfies the plans coverage criteria. The prescriber submitted medical records supporting that the patient had tried and failed and/or had intolerance to one sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, Farxiga. 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 Nucynta 50 milligram immediate-release tablet to treat chronic lumbar pain and chronic thoracic pain due to a chronic lumbosacral 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 noted conditions are off-label uses for the requested drug. The Medicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of immediate-release Nucynta for the treatment of chronic pain. Therefore, the drug is being prescribed for 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 Forteo 600 microgram per 2 milliliter solution pen injector to treat post menopausal osteoporosis. 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 Humira 40 milligram per 0.8 milliliter pen injector kit to treat inflammatory polyarthritis. 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 coverage for Nubeqa 300 milligram tablet, to be given in combination with Lupron, to treat metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. 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 Medicare approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of Nubeqa without the addition of Docetaxel for the treatment of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. The submitted documentation does not include any clinically relevant, peer-reviewed medical literature from a Medicare approved journal to support this appeal. As such, the available documentation supports that the requested drug is not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication, as defined by Medicare.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 Orserdu 345 milligram tablet to treat estrogen receptor 1-mutated, hormone positive, hormone positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 negative metastatic breast cancer. 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 coverage criteria that must be met prior to approval. The criteria indicates the enrollee must have a Food and Drug Administration approved indication. The Medicare approved compendia contain a citation to support the use of the drug for the enrollees noted diagnosis. Therefore, an exception to the plans coverage criteria is medically necessary. 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 Lovenox 150 milligram per milliliter syringe for risk of stroke and systemic embolism associated with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. 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 coverage for Otezla 10, 20, and 30 milligram tablet starter pack to treat oral lichen planus. 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 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. As such, 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 Octagam 10 grams per 100 milliliter solution to treat chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuritis. 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 documentation satisfies the plans coverage criteria. The prescriber submitted documentation supporting that the drug is not covered under Medicare Part B for the diagnosis given.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 Belsomra 10 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 Keytruda 100 milligram per 4 milliliter vial to treat non-small cell lung cancer. 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 confirm 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 Repatha Sureclick 140 milliliter per milliliter syringe to treat mixed hyperlipidemia. 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 Armodafinil 250 milligram tablet to treat fatigue due to multiple sclerosis. 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, 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.Additionally, because the requested drug is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D, a tiering exception cannot be considered at this time.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 Mounjaro 12.5 milligram per 0.5 milliliter to treat prediabetes. 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.We cannot consider a tiering exception for a drug for which the Medicare Part D plan is unable to provide coverage. Therefore, the plan is not required to cover Mounjaro or to grant a tiering exception for this drug.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 Carbidopa/Levodopa ER (extended release) 50/200 milligram 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. 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 corticobasal degeneration. 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 Parkinsons disease has been noted. However, this diagnosis was not initially provided to the plan. Furthermore, no medical records have been submitted to validate this additional/new diagnosis. As such, due to the conflicting information provided and a lack of supporting medical records, it cannot be established that the requested drug has been prescribed for a medically accepted indication.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Gemtesa 75 milligram 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.The plan has a step therapy requirement that must be met before coverage of this drug will be provided. The submitted documentation does not indicate that the plans step therapy requirement has been satisfied. Furthermore, the documentation does not confirm 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 Mesalamine 1000 milligram extended release capsule to treat Crohns disease of colon without complication. 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 Alosetron 0.5 milligram tablet to treat irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea. 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 coverage for Suboxone 4/1 milligram sublingual film. The Part D plan auto-forwarded the case to us for review.We received the submitted documentation to perform an independent and de novo review. We reviewed all the documentation submitted.During this review, we requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support a coverable diagnosis and to address the alternative drugs included in the plans formulary to treat the diagnosis. The prescriber did not respond to the request.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. Therefore, it cannot be determined if the 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 Cyproheptadine Hydrochloride 2 milligram per 5 milliliter syrup. 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.A request was submitted to the prescriber to provide a diagnosis, to clarify the medical history, to address the prior authorization criteria, and to provide supporting medical records. A reply from the prescriber was not received. The submitted documentation does not include medical records or evidence of the medical necessity of the prescribed drug. Therefore, it cannot be determined if the drug was 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 Prolia 60 milligram per milliliter subcutaneous injection to treat age related osteoporosis. 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 the enrollee has satisfied the plans prior authorization coverage criteria. However, we did not receive the requested information.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 Tretinoin 0.025 percent cream to treat enrollee's condition. The Part D plan auto forwarded the request.We received the submitted documentation to perform an independent and de novo review.We requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support a diagnosis, and the enrollee has satisfied the plans prior authorization coverage criteria. However, we did receive the requested information.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 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 Alrex 0.2 percent suspension eye drops. The case was auto-forwarded by the plan.We received the submitted documentation to perform an independent and de novo review.We requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support a covered diagnosis and that all formulary alternatives were tried and failed or were contraindicated. However, we did not receive the requested information.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 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 Saxenda 3 milligram per 0.5 milliliter pen injector to treat obesity, unspecified. 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.Drugs prescribed to treat weight gain (promote weight loss) are excluded from coverage under Medicare Part D. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Metoprolol Succinate 50 milligram tablet prescribed for an unspecified diagnosis. The Part D plan denied the additional 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 submitted documentation shows that the enrollee is requesting additional reimbursement for the Metoprolol Succinate purchased on dates of fill April 3, 2021, June 28, 2021, September 28, 2021, January 1, 2022, March 30, 2022, June 30, 2022, and September 26, 2022. 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 plan will only reimburse up to the contracted price of the drug, minus any deductible, copay or coinsurance. In this case, documentation was provided for dates of fill April 3, 2021, June 28, 2021, and September 28, 2021, showing the Medicare approved price for the drug was more than the copay amount and reimbursement has been provided. The information shows a copay for the requested drug, of $3.00 was charged correctly to the enrollee for dates of fill January 1, 2022, March 30, 2022, and June 30, 2022. The plans Evidence of Coverage states, that limits and restrictions are placed on drugs that are refilled too soon. Therefore, the claim for fill date September 26, 2022, was rejected at point of sale for refill too soon, and the amount charged to the enrollee was an out-of-pocket expense. Therefore, we determined that no additional reimbursement is due for the dates of fill requested.