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

At issue is coverage for Paxil 37.5 milligram extended release tablet to treat generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder. 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 Privigen 10 percent vial to treat nonfamilial hypogammaglobulinemia (D80.1). 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.After review because of the absence of B cells, it is determined the proper diagnosis should be common variable immunodeficiency with predominant abnormalities of B-cell numbers and function (D83.), which is covered under Part B for home infusion. As such, the administration of intravenous and/or subcutaneous immune globulin therapy for the treatment of a primary immune deficiency disorder would be covered under Medicare Part B. Medicare rules state that any drug available for coverage under Medicare Part B cannot be covered under Part D. Therefore, 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: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Sildenafil Citrate 20 milligram tablet to treat erectile dysfunction. 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 sexual or erectile dysfunction 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: Favorable

At issue is coverage for Epclusa 400/100 milligram tablet to treat chronic hepatitis C, genotype 1a, without cirrhosis. 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 supports that all of the plans requirements for coverage have been satisfied. Specifically, at reconsideration, prescriber provided support for the diagnosis of hepatitis C, chronic, genotype 1 a, without cirrhosis, Child-Pugh A. Therefore, the plans prior authorization requirements have been met and coverage for the drug is supported for a 12 week course. 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 Testosterone Cypionate 200 milligram per milliliter solution to treat testicular hypofunction, hypogonadism. 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 Phytonadione 5 milligram tablet to treat vitamin K deficiency. 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. Phytonadione 5 milligram tablet is a prescription vitamin. 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.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Emgality 120 milligram per milliliter solution auto injector to treat chronic migraines. 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 contraindicated. The prescriber did not respond to the 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 confirm 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 Prochlorperazine 5 milligram tablet to treat an unknown condition. 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. 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 is being 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 Vyvanse 30 milligram capsule to treat attention deficit disorder. 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 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: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Methadone Hydrochloride 5 milligram tablet to treat chronic pain. 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.The plan has prior authorization requirements for this drug that must be met before coverage will be provided. The available documentation does not confirm that all of the plans coverage requirements have been met. During this review, a request was submitted to the prescriber to address the plans coverage requirements for the requested drug and to provide supporting medical records. The prescriber did not respond to the request. As such, there is insufficient documentation to support that 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 Amlodipine 10 milligram tablet for date of purchase September 30, 2022, prescribed for unknown diagnosis. The Part D plan denied the enrollees request for additional reimbursement.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review of this request for coverage. We reviewed all documentation submitted for review, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. The plan submitted documentation that shows the claim for Amlodipine 10 milligram tablet was approved and copayment was charged correctly to the enrollee at the point of sale. The plans Evidence of Coverage indicates reimbursement is calculated based on the total cost of the drug, minus the required copayment/coinsurance amount, and minus the difference between what the plan normally pays for the drug and what the pharmacy charges. We determined this drug was paid correctly and no further reimbursement is required by the plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Clopidogrel 75 milligram tablet for date of purchase May 2, 2022, prescribed for unknown diagnosis. The Part D plan denied the enrollees request for additional reimbursement.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review of this request for coverage. We reviewed all documentation submitted for review, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. The plan submitted documentation that shows the claim for Clopidogrel 75 milligram tablet was approved and copayment was charged correctly to the enrollee at the point of sale. The plans Evidence of Coverage indicates reimbursement is calculated based on the total cost of the drug, minus the required copayment/coinsurance amount, and minus the difference between what the plan normally pays for the drug and what the pharmacy charges. We determined this drug was paid correctly and no further reimbursement is required by the plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Doxazosin 2 milligram tablet for date of purchase July 5, 2022, prescribed for unknown diagnosis. The Part D plan denied the enrollees request for additional reimbursement.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review of this request for coverage. We reviewed all documentation submitted for review, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. The plan submitted documentation that shows the claim for Doxazosin 2 milligram tablet was approved and copayment was charged correctly to the enrollee at the point of sale. The plans Evidence of Coverage indicates reimbursement is calculated based on the total cost of the drug, minus the required copayment/coinsurance amount, and minus the difference between what the plan normally pays for the drug and what the pharmacy charges. We determined this drug was paid correctly and no further reimbursement is required by the plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Hydralazine 100 milligram tablet for date of purchase May 19, 2022, prescribed for unknown diagnosis. The Part D plan denied the enrollees request for additional reimbursement.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review of this request for coverage. We reviewed all documentation submitted for review, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. The plan submitted documentation that shows the claim for Hydralazine 100 milligram tablet was approved and copayment was charged correctly to the enrollee at the point of sale. The plans Evidence of Coverage indicates reimbursement is calculated based on the total cost of the drug, minus the required copayment/coinsurance amount, and minus the difference between what the plan normally pays for the drug and what the pharmacy charges. We determined this drug was paid correctly and no further reimbursement is required by the plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Isosorbide Mononitrate 30 milligram extended release tablet for date of purchase July 5, 2022, prescribed for unknown diagnosis. The Part D plan denied the enrollees request for additional reimbursement.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review of this request for coverage. We reviewed all documentation submitted for review, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. The plan submitted documentation that shows the claim for Isosorbide Mononitrate 30 milligram tablet was approved and copayment was charged correctly to the enrollee at the point of sale. The plans Evidence of Coverage indicates reimbursement is calculated based on the total cost of the drug, minus the required copayment/coinsurance amount, and minus the difference between what the plan normally pays for the drug and what the pharmacy charges. We determined this drug was paid correctly and no further reimbursement is required by the plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Lantus Solostar Injector for date of purchase August 29, 2022, prescribed for unknown diagnosis. The Part D plan denied the enrollees request for additional reimbursement.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review of this request for coverage. We reviewed all documentation submitted for review, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. The plan submitted documentation that shows the claim for Lantus Solostar Injector was approved and copayment was charged correctly to the enrollee at the point of sale. The plans Evidence of Coverage indicates reimbursement is calculated based on the total cost of the drug, minus the required copayment/coinsurance amount, and minus the difference between what the plan normally pays for the drug and what the pharmacy charges. We determined this drug was paid correctly and no further reimbursement is required by the plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Losartan 100 milligram tablet for date of purchase July 5, 2022, prescribed for unknown diagnosis. The Part D plan denied the enrollees request for additional reimbursement.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review of this request for coverage. We reviewed all documentation submitted for review, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. The plan submitted documentation that shows the claim for Losartan 100 milligram tablet was approved and copayment was charged correctly to the enrollee at the point of sale. The plans Evidence of Coverage indicates reimbursement is calculated based on the total cost of the drug, minus the required copayment/coinsurance amount, and minus the difference between what the plan normally pays for the drug and what the pharmacy charges. We determined this drug was paid correctly and no further reimbursement is required by the plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Quetiapine Fumarate 300 milligram tablet for date of purchase September 30, 2022, prescribed for unknown diagnosis. The Part D plan denied the enrollees request for additional reimbursement.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review of this request for coverage. We reviewed all documentation submitted for review, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. The plan submitted documentation that shows the claim for Quetiapine Fumarate 300 milligram tablet was approved and copayment was charged correctly to the enrollee at the point of sale. The plans Evidence of Coverage indicates reimbursement is calculated based on the total cost of the drug, minus the required copayment/coinsurance amount, and minus the difference between what the plan normally pays for the drug and what the pharmacy charges. We determined this drug was paid correctly and no further reimbursement is required by the plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Rosuvastin 40 milligram tablet for date of purchase August 25, 2022, prescribed for unknown diagnosis. The Part D plan denied the enrollees request for additional reimbursement.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review of this request for coverage. We reviewed all documentation submitted for review, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. The plan submitted documentation that shows the claim for Rosuvastin 40 milligram tablet was approved and copayment was charged correctly to the enrollee at the point of sale. The plans Evidence of Coverage indicates reimbursement is calculated based on the total cost of the drug, minus the required copayment/coinsurance amount, and minus the difference between what the plan normally pays for the drug and what the pharmacy charges. We determined this drug was paid correctly and no further reimbursement is required by the plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Spironolactone 25 milligram tablet for date of purchase May 19, 2022, prescribed for unknown diagnosis. The Part D plan denied the enrollees request for additional reimbursement.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review of this request for coverage. We reviewed all documentation submitted for review, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. The plan submitted documentation that shows the claim for Spironolactone 25 milligram tablet was approved and copayment was charged correctly to the enrollee at the point of sale. The plans Evidence of Coverage indicates reimbursement is calculated based on the total cost of the drug, minus the required copayment/coinsurance amount, and minus the difference between what the plan normally pays for the drug and what the pharmacy charges. We determined this drug was paid correctly and no further reimbursement is required by the plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Trazodone 100 milligram tablet for date of purchase September 30, 2022, prescribed for unknown diagnosis. The Part D plan denied the enrollees request for additional reimbursement.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review of this request for coverage. We reviewed all documentation submitted for review, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. The plan submitted documentation that shows the claim for Trazodone 100 milligram tablet was approved and copayment was charged correctly to the enrollee at the point of sale. The plans Evidence of Coverage indicates reimbursement is calculated based on the total cost of the drug, minus the required copayment/coinsurance amount, and minus the difference between what the plan normally pays for the drug and what the pharmacy charges. We determined this drug was paid correctly and no further reimbursement is required by the plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Fosfomycin Tromethamine 3 gram packet to treat the enrollees condition. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we 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 record shows the enrollee received a 6 days supply on April 3, 2023. The next refill was payable on or after April 08, 2023. According to the plans Evidence of Coverage, limits and restrictions are placed on drugs that are refilled too soon. Therefore, the claim for fill date April 5, 2023, was rejected at point of sale for refill too soon, and the amount charged to the enrollee was an out-of-pocket expense. We determined this drug was paid correctly and no further reimbursement is required by the plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Metanx capsule to treat neuropathy. 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.