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

At issue is coverage for Ubrelvy 100 milligram tablet to treat migraines. 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 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 drug on the plans formulary, Nurtec, 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 indicate that the enrollee has tried and failed the formulary alternative drugs. At reconsideration, progress notes from a physicians office visit dated February 15, 2023, have been submitted. In the medication section of the progress notes, it is noted that Nurtec was prescribed on January 24, 2023, and that Ubrelvy was prescribed on January 26, 2023. However, this is not sufficient to establish whether the enrollee tried and failed the Nurtec. The prescriber has not addressed the enrollees use of Nurtec in the notes. As such, there is insufficient documentation to support a formulary exception in this case.It should be noted that the enrollee was previously approved for Ubrelvy and that this approval will remain effective through June 13, 2023. However, after June 13, 2023, coverage of the drug will no longer provided, as the submitted documentation does not support a formulary exception.  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 Xiidra 5 percent solution prescribed for an unspecified diagnosis. The Part D plan denied the request.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 plans 2022 Evidence of Coverage indicates reimbursement is calculated based on the total cost of the drug, minus the required copayment, and minus the difference between the plans approved amount for the drug and what the pharmacy charges. The plan submitted documentation that shows the enrollee was in the initial coverage stage for the dates of fill requested. The claims for dates of service February 1, 2022, March 1, 2022, March 30, 2022, and April 20, 2022, were approved as a tier 4 non-formulary drug and a coinsurance was charged to the enrollee at the point of sale. The plan indicates the drug was changed to a tier 3 brand name formulary drug effective July 1, 2022. Therefore, we determined the plan calculated the coinsurance correctly for the dates of fill requested and no further reimbursement is required by the plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a reimbursement request for Synthroid 112 microgram tablets. The Part D plan denied the request.We received a 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's Evidence of Coverage states, if an enrollee pays the full cost of a prescription, the enrollee may submit a request for reimbursement with proof of payment to ask the plan to pay its share of the cost. The submitted documentation does not include a valid proof of purchase for the drug at issue. Therefore, the request for reimbursement cannot be granted.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Terazosin 1 milligram capsule to treat an unspecified diagnosis. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. 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 requested drug was approved through mail order on January 15, 2022, for a 100-day supply and a copay was charged. 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 January 16, 2022, was a 7-day supply that was rejected at point of sale for refilled too soon. We determined the plan is not required to offer additional reimbursement.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is reimbursement for unknown drugs. The Part D plan auto-forwarded 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 requested the plan to provide reimbursement for prescription drugs purchased at Walgreens pharmacy. The plan's Evidence of Coverage states, if you pay the full cost of a prescription, you may submit a request for reimbursement with proof of payment to ask the plan to pay its share of the cost. However, there is missing information needed to consider the request. The documentation does not include the drug name, drug dosage, quantity of drug, the National Drug Code (NDC), the prescribing physicians name, address, National Provider Identifier (NPI) number, and receipt. Therefore, we determined that the plan is not required to reimburse the enrollee without the required documentation.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Lidocaine 5 percent patch to treatacute abdominal pain along the left lower ribs. 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.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 Oxycodone/Acetaminophen 10/325 milligram tablet prescribed for an unspecified diagnosis. The Part D plan auto-forwarded 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 a discount card was applied to the purchase of the requested drug. Discount cards are intended for out-of-pocket paying consumers and may not be used with commercial health plans or any federal or state funded health care program, such as Medicare or Medicaid. When the enrollees benefit card was used, the enrollee acknowledged and agreed that the discount program will be treated as the primary payor with respect to the medications that are purchased through the discount program. Therefore, the plan is not required to cover or provide reimbursement for the requested drug.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Fentanyl 25 microgram patch. The Part D plan denied the additional reimbursement 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 plan submitted documentation that shows the enrollee paid full price for the requested drug at a net-work pharmacy. 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. In this case, documentation was provided showing the Medicare contracted price for the prescription was $57.05. The plan will only reimburse up to the contracted price of the drug, minus any deductible, copay or coinsurance. The plan provided documentation indicating the enrollee was reimbursed $33.09, which was the remaining amount after the $23.96 copay was applied. We determined that the plan calculated reimbursement based on the contracted price of the drug and is not required to offer additional reimbursement.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Docusate Sodium 100 milligram soft gel. 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 prescribed that are available Over the Counter are excluded from coverage under Medicare Part D. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from coverage and not eligible for reimbursement.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Hydrochlorothiazide 25 milligram tablet prescribed to treat an unspecified diagnosis. The Part D plan auto-forwarded 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 self-administered drug during a hospital outpatient stay. The plan's Evidence of Coverage states, if the 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 documentation does not include the enrollees proof that full payment was made for the drug. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Oxycodone/Acetaminophen 5/325 milligram tablet prescribed to treat an unspecified diagnosis. The Part D plan auto-forwarded 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 self-administered drug during a hospital outpatient stay. The plan's Evidence of Coverage states, if the 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 documentation does not include the enrollees proof that full payment was made for the drug. Therefore, the reimbursement criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Oyster Shell Calcium/Vitamin D3 500 milligram/5 microgram tablet. 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 prescribed that are available Over the Counter are excluded from coverage under Medicare Part D. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from coverage and not eligible for reimbursement.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Thera tablet. 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 prescribed that are available Over the Counter are excluded from coverage under Medicare Part D. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from coverage and not eligible for reimbursement.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

Nystatin 1000,000units per gram cream was requested to treat the enrollees condition. 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 address the prior authorization 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

Triamcinolone 0.1 percent cream 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 address the step therapy requirements 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 Ozempic 0.25 or 0.5 milligrams per dose (2 milligrams per 1.5 milliters) to treat prediabetes and obesity. 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 Methocarbamol 750 milligram tablet. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the submitted documentation to perform an independent and de novo review.The submitted documentation does not include medical records or evidence of a prescribed diagnosis. Therefore, it cannot be determined if the drug was 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 Ajovy 225 milligram per 1.5 milliliter auto-injector to treat post-traumatic headaches. 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 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 Prednisolone Sodium Phosphate 1 percent, Bromfenac Sodium 0.075 percent ophthalmic solution compound prescribed after cataract surgery. 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 provided National Drug Codes (NDCs) for the compound drug are not listed with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as valid codes. In addition, the compound drug includes over the counter ingredients which are excluded from coverage under Part D. Therefore, the requested compound drug is excluded from coverage and not eligible for reimbursement. 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 Azasite 1 percent ophthalmic solution to treat squamous blepharitis of bilateral lower eyelids. 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 Mounjaro 5 milligram per 0.5 milliliter subcutaneous solution to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus and obesity. 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 Wegovy 0.25 milligram per 0.5 milliliter solution auto injector to treat weight gain due to insulin resistance. 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 prescribed to treat weight gain (promote weight loss) are excluded from coverage under Medicare Part D. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a tiering exception request for Ozempic 1 milligram per 0.75 milliliter (3) pen injector 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.Ozempic is a brand drug on Tier 3 of the plans 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.A physician reviewer determined that the tiering exception criteria are not met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Budesonide 0.5 milligram per 2 milliliter suspension to treat lichen planus. 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. Based on the information provided, we determined the drug may be eligible for coverage under Part B under Medicare rules.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Epinephrine 0.3 milligram per 0.3 milliliter solution auto-injector for anaphylactic shock prevention in enrollee with multiple food allergies. 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

At issue is Vyvanse 10 milligram capsule to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. 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

At issue is Sildenafil 20 milligram tablet as needed to treat male erectile dysfunction. 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. Also note that sexual/erectile dysfunction drugs prescribed to treat sexual/erectile dysfunction or other diagnoses for which the drug is not Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved, are excluded from coverage under Medicare Part D.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.