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

At issue is a request for coverage of Silodosin prescribed for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. 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 read your case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. Silodosin is not included in the plans formulary (list of covered drugs). The prescriber has not provided patient specific clinical rationale, supported by medical records, as to why the formulary alternatives included in the plan to treat the enrollees condition would likely not be as effective as the requested drug and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm. A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the formulary exception criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Lubiprostone 8 microgram capsules prescribed to treat constipation. The Part D plan denied the appeal request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.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 medical records do not support why other drugs on the plans formulary would not work for the enrollee.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the plan is not required to cover Lubiprostone 8 microgram capsules.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a request for coverage of Testosterone Cypionate 200 milligram per milliliter intramuscular injection solution. 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 read the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The documentation indicates that Testosterone Cypionate has been prescribed for decreased testosterone level, which has not been specified as primary hypogonadism or hypogonadotropic hypogonadism. However, the Medicare approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for the treatment of the noted condition. Therefore, the drug is being prescribed for a non-medically accepted indication and is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D. A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the plan is not required to cover the requested drug.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Venclexta 100-milligram tablet to treat acute myeloid leukemia. The Part D plan denied the request. We performed an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes 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 condition. Therefore, the requested drug 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 Auryxia 210 milligram tablets prescribed for hyperphosphatemia associated with chronic kidney disease, in an enrollee not on dialysis. The Part D plan denied the request. We performed an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The submitted documentation indicates the prescriber ordered Auryxia for hyperphosphatemia associated with chronic kidney disease, in an enrollee not on dialysis. The Medicare approved compendia do not support the use of the drug at issue for the enrollees condition. As the drug was not prescribed for a medically accepted indication, coverage cannot be allowed.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the plan is not required to cover the requested drug.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Octagam 10% intravenous solution prescribed for autoimmune encephalopathy. The Part D plan denied the request. We performed an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The submitted documentation indicates the prescriber ordered Octagam for autoimmune encephalopathy. The Medicare approved compendia do not support the use of the biologic at issue for the enrollees condition. As the biologic was not prescribed for a medically accepted indication, coverage cannot be allowed.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the plan is not required to cover the requested biologic.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Diclofenac Epolamine 1.3% Patch to treat acute sprain of ligament left ankle. The Part D plan denied your request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read your case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. 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 medical records do not support why other drugs on the plans formulary would not work for you. 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 Amantadine Hydrochloride 100 milligram capsules prescribed for the treatment of Parkinsons 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 read your case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. Amantadine Hydrochloride capsules are a generic drug on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. The prescriber has not provided patient specific clinical rationale as to why the generic drugs of the same type on the lower tiers of the plans formulary to treat the enrollees condition have been tried and failed, or are contraindicated. A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the plan is not required to cover the requested drug at a lower cost tier.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Suboxone 8-2 milligram sublingual film prescribed for opioid dependence. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.We asked the prescriber to send us information regarding the enrollees condition. We also asked for medical records or other documentation to show why the enrollee needs the medication. Specifically, we asked for records to show why other medications on the plan's formulary would not work for the enrollee. We received the documentation and included it in our review.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 medical records do not support why other drugs on the plans formulary would not work for the enrollee. A physician reviewed your appeal and determined that the plan is not required to cover Suboxone.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Veltassa 8.4 gram powder packet prescribed for the enrollees condition. The Part D plan denied the request for a tiering exception.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.Veltassa is a brand drug on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. There are no brand drugs of the same type on the lower cost sharing tiers. Therefore, this drug is not eligible for a tiering exception.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the plan is not required to grant the request for a tiering exception.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Cimzia 200 milligram/milliliter injection prescribed for ulcerative colitis. The Part D plan denied the request. We performed an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The submitted documentation indicates the prescriber ordered Cimzia for ulcerative colitis. The Medicare approved compendia do not support the use of the biologic at issue for the enrollees condition. As the biologic was not prescribed for a medically accepted indication, coverage cannot be allowed.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the plan is not required to cover the requested biologic.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a request for coverage of Forteo 620 microgram per 2.48 milliliter subcutaneous injection pen prescribed for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis with history of fractures and chronic Prednisone use. 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 read your case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. The plan has prior authorization requirements that must be met before coverage of this medication will be approved. The prescriber has not sufficiently addressed the plans coverage criteria and/or the coverage criteria are not satisfied by the provided medical records. 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 Itraconazole 100-milligram capsule to treat oropharyngeal candidiasis. The Part D plan denied the request. We performed an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.Your plan has prior authorization requirements for this drug that must be met before they will cover the requested drug. The documentation provided does not show the enrollee has satisfied the plan's 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 a prior authorization request for Temazepam 30 milligram capsules prescribed for insomnia. The Part D plan denied coverage.We performed an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any records submitted at the reconsideration level. The documentation on hand includes a physician supporting statement. The supporting statement does not indicate that the enrollee satisfies the plan's prior authorization 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 Latuda 40 milligram tablets prescribed for the enrollees condition. The Part D plan denied the request for a tiering exception.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.Latuda is a brand drug on Tier 4 of the plans formulary. There are no brand drugs of the same type on the lower cost sharing tiers. Therefore, this drug is not eligible for a tiering exception.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the plan is not required to grant the request for a tiering exception.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a request for coverage of First-Omeprazole 2 milligram per milliliter liquid suspension prescribed for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease in an enrollee who is unable to take oral medications. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The requested drug is a compounded drug that contains bulk powders. Bulk powders do not satisfy the definition of a Part D drug and are not covered by Part D. Therefore, the First-Omeprazole is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D. 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 Azelastin-Fluticasone 137-50 microgram nasal spray prescribed for the enrollees condition. The Part D plan denied the request for a tiering exception.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.This drug is provided by the plan under a formulary exception. It is not on the plans formulary but they have agreed to provide it at a cost sharing level assigned to all formulary exceptions. Per Medicare rules, non-formulary drugs are not eligible for a tiering exception.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the plan is not required to grant the request for a tiering exception.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a request for coverage of Droxidopa 100 milligram capsules, 450 capsules per 30 days. The Part D plan denied the request for coverage because the amount requested exceeded the plans quantity limit. Additionally, the drug was being prescribed for a non-medically accepted indication.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The medical records indicate that Droxidopa has been prescribed for the treatment of orthostatic hypotension. However, as outlined in the Medicare approved compendia, Droxidopa is indicated in the treatment of neurogenic orthostatic hypotension caused by primary autonomic failure (e.g. Parkinsons disease, multiple system atrophy), dopamine beta-hydroxylase deficiency, or nondiabetic autonomic neuropathy. The submitted progress notes do not support that the enrollees orthostatic hypotension is neurogenic, as there is no documentation of primary autonomic failure, dopamine beta-hydroxylase deficiency, or nondiabetic autonomic neuropathy. Therefore, the drug is being prescribed for a non-medically accepted indication and is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D. Since the drug is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D, the plans quantity limit for the drug is not relevant to this review. A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the plan is not required to cover the requested drug.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Motegrity 2-milligram tablet to treat idiopathic constipation. The Part D plan denied the request. The requested drug is not on the plans formulary. We performed an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.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 medical records do not support why other drugs on the plans formulary would not work for you.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 Kesimpta 20 milligram/0.4 milliliter pen injector prescribed for multiple sclerosis. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.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 medical records do not support why other drugs on the plans formulary would not work for the enrollee. A physician reviewed your appeal and determined that the plan is not required to cover Kesimpta.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Tadalafil 20 milligram tablets prescribed for benign prostatic hyperplasia. The Part D plan denied the request. We performed an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.We determined that the plan is not required to cover Tadalafil because it was prescribed for an off-label usage for an erectile dysfunction drug. Drugs prescribed for the treatment of sexual or erectile dysfunction are excluded from coverage when used off-label. 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 a prior authorization request for Xeljanz 5 milligram tablets prescribed for psoriatic arthritis. The Part D plan denied coverage.We performed an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any records submitted at the reconsideration level. The documentation on hand includes a physician supporting statement. The supporting statement does not indicate that the enrollee satisfies the plan's prior authorization 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 Procrit 10000 units/milliliter for subcutaneous injection.  At initial determination and redetermination the diagnosis of severe iron deficiency anemia was given. The Part D plan denied the request stating that the provided diagnosis is a non-medically accepted indication.  We received a reconsideration request.We performed an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.At reconsideration, a diagnosis of anemia due to chronic kidney disease was given. The medical records provided by the prescriber do not support this diagnosis as the cause of this enrollees anemia. Prior authorization information provided by the prescriber specifically excluded this diagnosis. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D. Additionally noted, per prior authorization criteria, the enrollee must have trialed and failed Retacrit, before coverage for Procrit could be considered.The physician reviewer has determined that the plan is not required to cover Procrit
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Travatan Z 0.004% solution prescribed for the enrollees condition. The Part D plan denied the request for a tiering exception.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.This drug is provided by the plan under a formulary exception. It is not on the plans formulary but they have agreed to provide it at a cost sharing level assigned to all formulary exceptions. Per Medicare rules, non-formulary drugs are not eligible for a tiering exception.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the plan is not required to grant the request for a tiering exception.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Diclofenac Sodium 1% gel prescribed for other intervertebral disc degeneration. The Part D plan denied the request. We performed an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.We requested additional documentation from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support the plans prior authorization coverage criteria was met. However, we did not receive the requested information.The submitted documentation indicates the prescriber ordered Diclofenac Sodium 1% gel for other intervertebral disc degeneration. On appeal, the appellant indicated the enrollee uses the medication for arthritis. However, no medical records were submitted to support a change in billed diagnosis. The Medicare approved compendia do not support the use of the drug at issue for the enrollees condition. As the drug was not prescribed for a medically accepted indication, coverage cannot be allowed.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the plan is not required to cover the requested drug.