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

At issue is coverage for Apokyn 30 milligram per 3 milliliter cartridge to treat Parkinson's disease. 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 Firazyr 30 milligram per 3 milliliter syringe to treat angioedema. 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 Venclexta 100 milligram tablet, to be given in combination with to Darzalex, Revlimid and Dexamethasone, to treat t(11;14)-positive relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. 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 Medicare approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for treatment of the noted condition. The submitted documentation does not include any clinically relevant, peer-reviewed medical literature from a Medicare approved journal to support this appeal. Therefore, 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: Unfavorable

At issue is a tiering exception request for Eliquis 2.5 milligram tablet to treat chronic embolism and thrombosis of left calf muscular vein. 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.Eliquis is a 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 Caplyta 42 milligram tablet to treat bipolar disorder. 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.Caplyta is included on Tier 5 of the plans formulary. Tier 5 of the formulary is the tier reserved for specialty drugs. The Specialty tier is exempt from tiered cost-sharing expectations, per Medicare rules. Therefore, this 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 Koselugo 25 milligram capsule to treat neurofibromatosis, type 1 in an adult enrollee. 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 Medicare approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for treatment of the noted condition. The submitted documentation does not include any clinically relevant, peer-reviewed medical literature from a Medicare approved journal to support this appeal. Therefore, 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: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Butalbital/Acetaminophen/Caffeine 50/325/40 milligram tablets 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.During this review, we requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested a medically accepted indication, medical records, and a prescriber statement to support 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. 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 Envarsus Extended Release 0.75 milligram tablet to treat unknown diagnosis. The Part D plan denied the request for coverage and then auto-forwarded the case to us for review.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all available documentation.During this review, we requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support a diagnosis, the enrollee has satisfied the plans prior authorization coverage criteria, and all lower-tiered drugs to treat the enrollees condition were tried and failed or were deemed contraindicated. 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 Testosterone Cypionate 200 milligram per milliliter solution. The Part D plan auto-forwarded the case to us for review.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all available documentation.In order for a drug to be covered by Medicare Part D, it must be prescribed for a medically accepted indication outlined in the Medicare approved compendia. The 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 coverage requirements for this drug. The prescriber did not respond to the request. Without a diagnosis, it cannot be established that 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 coverage for Budesonide 1 milligram per 2 milliliter inhalation suspension prescribed 120 milliliters per 30 days 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. During this review, we requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement. No additional information was received. The plans quantity limit for the requested drug is 60 milliliters 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 Ondansetron Hydrochloride 4 milligram tablet. The Part D plan denied the request for coverage and then auto-forwarded the case to us for review.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all available documentation.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. During this review, a request was submitted to the prescriber to provide a diagnosis and supporting medical records. The prescriber did not respond to the request. Therefore, 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 Kerendia 10 milligram tablet to treat chronic kidney disease associated with type 2 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.The plan has prior authorization requirements that need to be met before coverage of the drug will be provided. There is not sufficient documentation available to confirm that the plans coverage requirements have been satisfied, as no medical records have been submitted for review. During this review, a request was submitted to the prescriber to provide supporting medical records to validate that the plans prior authorization requirements were met. The prescriber did not respond to the request. Therefore, it cannot be established that all of the plans prior authorization criteria 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 Aimovig 140 milligram per milliliter solution auto-injector for migraine prophylaxis. The Part D plan denied the request for coverage.During this review, we requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support the enrollee has 4 or more migraine headaches per month and that a standard migraine pophylaxis drug had been tried and failed or was contraindicated. However, the prescriber did not respond to our request.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 Tramadol Hydrochloride 50 milligram tablet to treat cervical radiculopathy. 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 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 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 Lidocaine 5 percent patch to treat the enrollees 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.During this review, we requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested a medically accepted indication, medical records, and a prescriber statement to support 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 Viberzi 75 milligram tablet to treat unknown diagnosis. 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 medical records and a prescriber statement to support a diagnosis and that all formulary alternatives were tried and failed or were deemed contraindicated. 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: Favorable

At issue is coverage for Tramadol Hydrochloride 50 milligram tablet to treat left leg pain. 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 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 supports that all of the plans requirements for coverage have been satisfied. Specifically, the documentation supports the enrollee is currently utilizing opioid therapy on a consistent basis for chronic pain. Therefore, the plans prior authorization requirements have been met and coverage for the drug is supported.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 Tacrolimus 0.1 percent ointment to treat parasthesia of skin. 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: Favorable

At issue is Diazepam/Baclofen/Gabapentin suppository compound. The Part D plan denied the 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 the enrollee received the compounded drug from a network pharmacy. 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 enrollee provided a proof of purchase indicating full payment was made for the drug at issue. Therefore, we determined the reimbursement criteria have been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is bulk powder compounded drug comprised of Clonidine powder/Ketamine Hydrochloride powder/Gabapentin powder/Baclofen powder. 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 considered a bulk powder/ or 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 Leqvio 284 milligram per 1.5 milliliter solution to treat an enrollee with high cholesterol. 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 Benzalkonium Chloride solution as part of a bulk powder compounded drug. The Part D plan denied/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.Drugs that fall into the category of bulk powders do not meet the definition of a Part D drug. The requested drug is considered a bulk powder/ or 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 Bimatoprost bulk powder compounded drug. The Part D plan denied/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.Drugs that fall into the category of bulk powders do not meet the definition of a Part D drug. The requested drug is considered a bulk powder/ or 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.