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

At issue is coverage for Megestrol Acetate 40 milligram/milliliter suspension to treat cirrhosis of liver with ascites. 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 Farxiga 5 milligram tablet to treat 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.Farxiga 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 Acthar gel 400 units per 5 milliliter vial to treat relapsing multiple sclerosis. 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 Jardiance 25 milligram tablet to treat 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.Jardiance 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 Buprenorphine 10 microgram per hour patch patch to treat post laminectomy syndrome and chronic pain syndrome. 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 Lidocaine 5 percent patch to treat neuralgia due to arthritis and severe contractures due to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. 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 Ajovy 225 milligrams per 1.5 milliliter subcutaneous solution for the prophylaxis of chronic migraine headache. 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 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 Varenicline 1 milligram tablet, 180 per 90 days, to treat nicotine dependence. 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.We requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support the quantity prescribed was medically necessary for the enrollee. However, the prescriber did not respond to our request.The plans quantity limit for the requested drug is 336 per 365 days. Records indicate that you have already filled this amount and are requesting coverage of an additional quantity of180 tablets per 90 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 Flovent Hydrofluoroalkane 110 microgram inhaler to treat th enrollee's. 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 2024 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. 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 Armour thyroid 15 milligram tablet to treat hypothyroidism. 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 QIC had previously denied the drug as being off-formulary. However, upon further review it has been determined the drug is excluded.Armour Thyroid has not been found by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to be safe and effective, and the drug product labeling has not been approved by the FDA. Drugs that are not FDA-approved do not meet the definition of a Part D drug and are excluded from Part D coverage. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from Medicare Part D coverage.This decision does not address the medical necessity of the requested 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 Cinacalcet Hydrochloride 30 milligram tablets to treat an unclear 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 the diagnosis and the enrollee has satisfied the plans step therapy requirement. 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 Wegovy 0.25 milligram injection to treat the enrollee's 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 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.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. 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 Everolimus 10 milligram tablet to treat NF1 mutated glioblastoma. 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 Clotrimazole/Betamethasone Dipropionate 1-0.05 percent cream prescribed for the treatment of the enrollee's condition. The case was auto-forwarded by the plan. We received a 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. The plan submitted documentation that shows the enrollee was in the initial coverage stage of the Part D benefit when this drug was purchased. According to the plans Evidence of Coverage, the copay for a 30 day supply of a tier 1 drug at a network pharmacy is $45. The record shows the full price of the drug was less than the $45 copay amount. Therefore, the enrollees charge was based on the total cost of the drug. 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 Hydrocodone/Acetaminophen 10/325 milligram tablet prescribed for an unknown diagnosis. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted. The submitted documentation shows the enrollee filled a prescription for the requested drug at a network pharmacy. The plans Evidence of Coverage states, if the enrollee pays the full cost of a prescription, then they may submit a request for reimbursement with proof of payment to ask the plan to pay its share of the cost. In this case, proof of payment in the form of a receipt showing the amount that was paid for the drug was not provided. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria have not been met.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 Oxycodone/Acetaminophen 5/325 milligram tablet prescribed for an unknown diagnosis. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted. The submitted documentation shows the enrollee filled a prescription for the requested drug at a network pharmacy. The plans Evidence of Coverage states, if the enrollee pays the full cost of a prescription, then they may submit a request for reimbursement with proof of payment to ask the plan to pay its share of the cost. In this case, proof of payment in the form of a receipt showing the amount that was paid for the drug was not provided. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria have not been met.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 Androgel. 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. The submitted documentation shows the plan reprocessed claims for the requested drug and adjusted the amount owed due to rework to fill gaps in the enrollees true out of pocket accumulation. Medicare rules allow a Part D plan to apply deductible, coinsurance, and copayments to covered drugs. We reviewed the plans formulary and Evidence of Coverage. In this case, the enrollee is responsible for their share of any deductible and copay that was not applied at the point of sale.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Doxazosin Mesylate. 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. The submitted documentation shows the plan reprocessed claims for the requested drug and adjusted the amount owed due to rework to fill gaps in the enrollees true out of pocket accumulation. Medicare rules allow a Part D plan to apply deductible, coinsurance, and copayments to covered drugs. We reviewed the plans formulary and Evidence of Coverage. In this case, the enrollee is responsible for their share of any deductible and copay that was not applied at the point of sale.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Ropinirole Hydrochoride. 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. The submitted documentation shows the plan reprocessed claims for the requested drug and adjusted the amount owed due to rework to fill gaps in the enrollees true out of pocket accumulation. Medicare rules allow a Part D plan to apply deductible, coinsurance, and copayments to covered drugs. We reviewed the plans formulary and Evidence of Coverage. In this case, the enrollee is responsible for their share of any deductible and copay that was not applied at the point of sale.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Triamterene/Hydrochlorothiazide. 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. The submitted documentation shows the plan reprocessed claims for the requested drug and adjusted the amount owed due to rework to fill gaps in the enrollees true out of pocket accumulation. Medicare rules allow a Part D plan to apply deductible, coinsurance, and copayments to covered drugs. We reviewed the plans formulary and Evidence of Coverage. In this case, the enrollee is responsible for their share of any deductible and copay that was not applied at the point of sale.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Xifaxan 550 milligram tablet on 9/92023 for 6 tablets and 10/2/2023 for 36 tablets for a gastrointestinal infection. 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.The submitted documentation shows the enrollee purchased Xifaxan without a prior authorization, which is required for this drug by your plan. According to the plans 2023 Evidence of Coverage, limits and restrictions are placed on drugs that require a prior authorization. The claim for the dates of 9/9/2023 and 10/2/2023 did not have a prior authorization from your plan and does not qualify for reimbursement. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from coverage and is not eligible for reimbursement.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

At issue is Dexamethasone. 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 drug at a hospital. 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 statement from the hospital and a cancelled check to support payment has been made. Therefore, we determined the reimbursement criteria have been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

At issue is Hydrochlorothiazide. 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 drug at a hospital. 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 statement from the hospital and a cancelled check to support payment has been made. Therefore, we determined the reimbursement criteria have been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

At issue is Isosorbide Mononitrate. 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 drug at a hospital. 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 statement from the hospital and a cancelled check to support payment has been made. Therefore, we determined the reimbursement criteria have been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

At issue is Losartan Potassium. 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 drug at a hospital. 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 statement from the hospital and a cancelled check to support payment has been made. Therefore, we determined the reimbursement criteria have been met.