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

At issue is a tiering exception request for Anoro Ellipta 62.5/25 microgram per inhalation. The Part D plan denied the request 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.Anoro Ellipta 62.5/25 microgram per inhalation is a brand drug on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. There are no brand drugs of the same type to treat the same condition on the lower tiers of the plans formulary. If there are no drugs of the same type on a lower tier, the drug is not eligible for a tiering exception. A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for a tiering exception.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Dotti 0.1 milligram patch to treat menopausal symptoms. 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.Dotti is a generic drug on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. There are no generic 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 Humira 40 milligram per 0.4 milliliter subcutaneous kit, 6 pens per 28 days, to treat sarcoidosis of the lung. 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 4 pens per 28 days. The prescriber has not provided patient-specific clinical rationale 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 Hydroxyzine Hydrochloride 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 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 Tymlos 80 microgram per dose pen injector to treat osteoporosis with a current pathological fracture with delayed healing. The Part D plan denied the request for coverage.  We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all available documentation. The plan has prior authorization requirements for this drug that must be met before coverage will be provided. The submitted documentation does not support that all of the plans requirements for coverage have been satisfied. Furthermore, the documentation does not support the medical necessity for an exception to the plans prior authorization requirements. A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Acthar 80 units per milliliter gel to treat sarcoidosis. 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
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Mounjaro 0.5 milligram per 0.5 milliliter solution to treat obesity. The Part D plan denied the request for coverage. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all available documentation.Drugs prescribed to treat obesity and/or to promote weight loss 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 a tiering exception request for Emsam 6 milligram per 24 hour patch to treat depression. 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.Emsam is a brand drug on Tier 4 of the plans formulary. There are no brand drugs of the same type to treat the same condition on the lower tiers of the plans formulary. If there are no drugs of the same type on a lower tier, the drug is not eligible for a tiering exception. A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for a tiering exception.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a tiering exception request for Trulicity 3 milligram per 0.5 milliliter pen injector to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all available documentation.Trulicity 3 milligram per 0.5 milliliter pen injector is a biologic drug on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. There are no biologic 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 Neudexta 20/10 milligram capsule to treat pseudobulbar affect. The Part D plan denied the request for coverage. .We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all available documentation.The plan has prior authorization requirements for this drug that must be met before coverage will be provided. The submitted documentation does not support that all of the plans requirements for coverage have been satisfied. Furthermore, the documentation does not support the medical necessity for an exception to the plans prior authorization requirements.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Kristalose 20-gram packet to treat hepatic encephalopathy. 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.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Zepbound 2.5 milligrams per 0.5 milliliter subcutaneous solution to treat obesity. 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 obesity and/or to promote weight loss 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 Trulicity 1.5 milligram per 0.5 milliliter solution pen injector. 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 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 and the prior authorization criteria has 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 Ciclopirox 8 percent solution to treat toenail onychomycosis with lunula (matrix) involvement. 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 Nayzilam 5 milligram per 0.1 milliliter solution, 10 bottles per 10 days to treat epilepsy. 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 plans quantity limit for the requested drug is 10 bottles per 30 days. The prescriber has not provided patient-specific clinical rationale 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 2 milligram per 3 milliliiter injection solution to treat type II diabetes mellitus. 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.Ozempic is a brand drug on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. There are no brand drugs of the same type to treat the same condition on the lower tiers of the plans formulary. If there are no drugs of the same type on a lower tier, the drug is not eligible for a tiering exception. A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for a tiering exception.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Sildenafil 20 milligram tablet to treat other secondary pulmonary hypertension. 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 Orencia 250 milligram intravenous powder for solution to treat rheumatoid arthritis. 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.During this review, we requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support that all formulary alternatives were tried and failed or were deemed contraindicated. However, the prescriber did not respond to our request.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. Please note, this reconsideration decision was based on the plans 2023 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 coverage for Glatiramer 40 milligram per milliliter subcutaneous solution prefilled syringe. 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.During this review, we requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support that the drug is requested to treat a medically accepted indication and that the enrollee has satisfied the plans prior authorization coverage criteria. However, the prescriber did not respond to our request.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 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 coverage for Rocklatan 0.02 percent / 0.005 percent eye drop. 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.During this review, we requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support that all lower-tiered drugs to treat the enrollees condition were tried and failed or were deemed contraindicated and the quantity prescribed was medically necessary for the enrollee. However, the prescriber did not respond to our request.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 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. As such, there is insufficient documentation available to establish that the requested drug has been prescribed for a medically accepted indication.The request for a tiering exception and quantity limit except cannot be reviewed because the requested drug was not 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 Repatha SureClick 140 milligram per milliliter subcutaneous solution to treat hyperlipidemia. 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.During this review, we requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested a prescriber statement to support that the enrollee has satisfied the plans prior authorization coverage criteria. We received additional documentation and included it in the review. The plan has prior authorization requirements for this drug that must be met before coverage will be provided. The submitted documentation does not support that all of the plans requirements for coverage have been satisfied. Furthermore, the documentation does not support the medical necessity for an exception to the plans prior authorization requirements.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Lubiprostone 8 microgram capsule to treat idiopathic constipation. 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.During this review, we requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested a prescriber statement to support that all formulary alternatives were tried and failed or were deemed contraindicated. However, the prescriber did not respond to our request.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: Favorable

At issue is Ciclopirox 8 percent solution prescribed for an unspecified diagnosis. The case was auto forwarded by the plan.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 the enrollee purchased the requested drug on 6/07/2023. The plans Evidence of Coverage states that 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 includes a receipt for the requested drug, the prescriber's valid National Provider Number 1275586919, and the necessary drug information needed for reimbursement. Therefore, we determined the plan is required to provide reimbursement for the requested drug based on the enrollee's cost share stage, as the reimbursement criteria are met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a tiering exception request for Ozempic (0.25 or 0.5 milligram per dose) subcutaneous solution pen-injector to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all available documentation.Ozempic is a brand drug on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. There are no brand drugs of the same type to treat the same condition on the lower tiers of the plans formulary. If there are no drugs of the same type on a lower tier, the drug is not eligible for a tiering exception. A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for a tiering exception.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Folic Acid 1 milligram tablet to treat the enrollees condition. 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.Folic Acid is a prescription mineral. 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. 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.