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

At issue is Ozempic 2 milligram per 1.5 milliliter auto-injector pen to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus without complications. 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 information provided indicates the enrollee is under a Pharmaceutical Assistance Program (PAP) through December 31, 2022. Medicare rules state that PAPs operate outside of Medicare Part D. Therefore, we determined the drug is not eligible for coverage under the Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a tiering exception request for Linzess 72 microgram capsule to treat irritable bowel syndrome with constipation. 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, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.Linzess is a brand drug on Tier 4 of the plans 2023 formulary. There are no brand drugs of the same type on the lower tiers of the plans formulary to treat the same diagnosis. Therefore, this drug is not eligible for a tiering exception. Please note, this reconsideration decision was based on the plans 2023 coverage criteria.A physician reviewer determined that the tiering exception criteria are not met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a tiering exception request for Levothyroxine Sodium 75 microgram tablet to treat hypothyroidism. 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, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. Levothyroxine Sodium 75 microgram tablet is a generic drug on Tier 2 of the plans formulary. There are no generic drugs of the same type on the lower tiers of the plans formulary to treat the same diagnosis. Therefore, this drug is not eligible for a tiering exception. A physician reviewer determined that the tiering exception criteria are not met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Humira 40 milligram (mg) /0.8 milliliter (ml) pen-injector kit to treat Takayasu's arteritis. 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, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The use of the requested drug to treat the provided diagnosis is an off-label use. The Medicare approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for the treatment of this diagnosis. Therefore, the requested drug(s) is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

At issue is Vilazodone Hydrochloride 20 milligram tablet to treat major depressive disorder, recurrent, moderate. 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, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The documentation submitted includes evidence of prior therapy with a serotonin reuptake inhibitor and a generic bupropion product. The documentation satisfies the plans coverage criteria. 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 Lupron Depot 11.25 milligram kit to treat stage 2 prostate cancer. 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, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. The use of the requested drug to treat the provided diagnosis is an off-label use. The Medicare approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for the treatment of this diagnosis. Therefore, the requested drug(s) is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D. A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Modafinil 100 milligram tablet for 180 tablets every 90 days to treat fatigue associated with multiple sclerosis. The Part D plan denied the request.  We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the yereconsideration level. The plan limits the amount of Modafinil 100 milligram tablet to 30 tablets per 30 days. The prescriber has not indicated that the number of doses of the requested drug allowed by the plan would likely be ineffective in treating the diagnosis or would be likely to cause harm. Therefore, an exception to the plans coverage criteria is not supported.  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 Saxenda 18 milligram per 3 milliliter solution auto-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 documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The only Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved indication for the brand drug, Saxenda, is for chronic weight management in adults with an elevated body mass index (BMI). Drugs prescribed to treat/promote weight loss (even if used for a non-cosmetic purpose, such as morbid obesity) are excluded from the Part D coverage. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from 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 Forteo 600 microgam per 2.4 milliliter solution pen injector to treat postmenopausal osteoporosis without current pathological fracture. 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, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The plan has prior authorization requirements for this drug. These requirements must be met before coverage can be extended. The submitted documentation does not satisfy the plans 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 Budesonide enteric coated 3 milligram capsule to treat ulcerative colitis/proctitis without complications, gastroparesis, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, and unspecified diarrhea. 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, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The use of the requested drug to treat the provided diagnosis is an off-label use. The Medicare approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for the treatment of this diagnosis. Therefore, the requested drug(s) is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Xifaxan 550 milligram tablet. 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 documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The prescriber indicated to the plan that the requested drug was not being prescribed to treat irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea or to reduce the risk of overt hepatic encephalopathy. At reconsideration, it has now been noted that the requested drug is being prescribed to treat irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea. However, this new information conflicts with the information provided to the plan and no medical records have been submitted to confirm which information is correct. Due to the conflicting information provided and a lack of supporting medical records, it cannot be determined whether the requested drug is being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as outlined in the Medicare approved compendia.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 Dupixent 300 milligram per 2 milliliter to treat dermatitis, unspecified and seborrheic dermatitis, unspecified. 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, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. The use of the requested drug to treat the provided diagnosis is an off-label use. The Medicare approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for the treatment of this diagnosis. Therefore, the requested drug(s) is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D. A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride 10 milligram (mg) tablet to treat chronic muscle spasms. 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, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The use of the requested drug to treat the provided diagnosis is an off-label use. The Medicare approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for the treatment of this diagnosis. Therefore, the requested drug(s) is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Xyosted 75 milligram per 0.75 milligram subcutaneous auto-injector to treat decreased libido and erectile dysfunction associated with primary 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 documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The submitted documentation indicates that the only symptoms the enrollee has due to primary hypogonadism are decreased libido and erectile dysfunction. However, drugs used for the treatment of sexual or erectile dysfunction are excluded from coverage under Medicare Part D. This is regardless of the underlying condition. There is no indication in the submitted documentation that the enrollee is having other symptoms associated with the presence of primary hypogonadism. As such, the requested drug is excluded from coverage under Medicare Part D. 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 Insulin Lispro 100 units per milliliter pen to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus without complication. 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, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The requested drug is not on the plans formulary. In order to grant an exception for a drug not on the plans formulary, alternative formulary drugs must have been tried, failed, or deemed contraindicated. In this case, the documentation does not support why the formulary alternatives, required by the plan would likely not be as effective for this diagnosis, and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

Lorazepam 0.5 milligram tablet was requested to treat the enrollees condition. The case was auto-forwarded by the plan.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.A request was submitted to the prescriber to provide a diagnosis, to clarify the medical history, to address the prior authorization criteria/ the nonforumlary exception criteria/ the step therapy requirements/ the tiering exception criteria, and to provide supporting medical records. A reply from the prescriber was not received. Without a diagnosis, it cannot be established that the requested drug is being prescribed for a medically accepted indication. As such, the requested drug does not satisfy the definition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D. A physician reviewed your appeal and determined that the plan is not required to cover the requested drug.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for the non-formulary drug, Tretinoin 0.01 percent gel. The Part D plan auto-forwarded the case to us for review.We received the submitted documentation to perform an independent and de novo review. We reviewed all the documentation submitted.During this review, we requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support a coverable diagnosis and to address the alternative drugs included in the plans formulary to treat the diagnosis. The prescriber did not respond to the request.The submitted documentation does not include medical records or evidence of a prescribed diagnosis. Therefore, it cannot be determined if 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 Lorazepam 1 milligram tablet for the 2023 coverage year prescribed to treat insomnia. 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 documentation submitted.The Part D plan has prior authorization requirements that have to be met before coverage of this drug is approved. 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 reimbursement for Progesterone 200 milligram capsule prescribed to treat an unspecified diagnosis. 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 plans 2022 Evidence of Coverage states, reimbursement for drugs is based the total cost of covered drugs, minus the required deductible, copay, or coinsurance amount, and minus the difference between what the plan approves for the drug and what the pharmacy charges. The claim information shows the cost of the drug for dates of fill March 5, 2022 and May 31, 2022 was more than the plan approved amount. Therefore, we determined that the plan is not required to provide further reimbursement.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a tiering exception request for Ranolazine extended release 500 milligram tablet to treat chest pain, unspecified. 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, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.We requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support all lower-tier drugs to treat the enrollees condition were tried and failed or were contraindicated. We received additional documentation and included it in the review. Ranolazine extended release is a generic drug on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. The prescriber has not indicated if all alternatives required by the plan have been tried and failed, or why the plans lower tiered drugs would likely not be as effective as the requested drug. Therefore, this drug is not eligible for a tiering exception.A physician reviewer determined that tiering exception criteria are not met.
Appeal type: At-Risk Determination
Decision: Unfavorable

A reconsideration request was auto-forwarded from the plan to review the at-risk determination. The plan imposed a 90 morphine milligram equivalent per day restriction.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The record shows the enrollee has had an overdose diagnosis within the past 12 months, and has received opioid medication within the past 6 months. Therefore, the plan determined a safety edit was necessary. The plan imposed a 90 morphine milligram equivalent per day restriction. The documentation supports the plan contacted the enrollees prescriber concerning the restriction. The prescriber indicated the restriction was appropriate.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined the plans restriction is appropriate as there is a risk of obtaining an unsafe quantity of frequently abused drugs (i.e., opioids and benzodiazepines) when receiving prescriptions from multiple prescribers.In conclusion, the decision of the QIC is unfavorable.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Prednisolone Acetate-Moxifloxacin-Bromfenac 1 percent/0.5 percent/0.075 percent ophthalmic drops suspension 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 reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.Drugs that are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are excluded from Medicare Part D coverage. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Lidocaine 5 percent compound ointment prescribed to treat pruritus ani. The case was auto-forwarded by the plan. 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 plan provided documentation showing the enrollee requested reimbursement for a compounded drug. However, the pharmacy's Universal Claim Form for a Compounded Medication is not provided listing each ingredient, dosage, and the National Drug Codes (NDCs) of each ingredient. Therefore, we determined the plan is not required to cover or reimburse the enrollee for the compounded drug. This decision does not address the medical necessity or appropriateness of the drug. It only establishes that payment or reimbursement cannot be made under the Medicare Part D benefit without the required documentation.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Hydrocortisone 2.5 percent compound ointment prescribed to treat pruritus ani. The case was auto-forwarded by the plan. 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 plan provided documentation showing the enrollee requested reimbursement for a compounded drug. However, the pharmacy's Universal Claim Form for a Compounded Medication is not provided listing each ingredient, dosage, and the National Drug Codes (NDCs) of each ingredient. Therefore, we determined the plan is not required to cover or reimburse the enrollee for the compounded drug. This decision does not address the medical necessity or appropriateness of the drug. It only establishes that payment or reimbursement cannot be made under the Medicare Part D benefit without the required documentation.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Vivotif capsule prescribed for vaccination. The Part D plan auto-forwarded the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.Medicare rules state that drug claims must include a valid National Drug Code (NDC) that is listed with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The submitted documentation does not include a valid NDC for the Vivotif. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Prenisolone Sodium Phosphate powder prescribed to treat the enrollee's condition. 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.