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

At issue is Pimecrolimus 1 percent topical cream to treat L30.9, Dermatitis, unspecified.  This is the diagnosis provided by the prescriber in the appeal.  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.  Please note that the prescriber was asked to provide relevant medical records.  No medical records were provided.  Also note that in the reconsideration appeal that the prescriber changed the diagnosis to contact dermatitis.  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 Movantik 25-milligram tablet daily to treat opioid-induced constipation. 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.We requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support the enrollee has satisfied the plans step therapy requirements. However, we did not receive the requested information.The prescriber has not indicated that all alternatives required by the plan have been tried and failed, or why the plans required step therapy drugs would likely not be as effective as the requested drug. A physician reviewer determined that neither step therapy nor step therapy exception criteria are met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Leukine 250-microgram vial for injection prescribed to prevent acute radiation syndrome in an enrollee with metastatic prostate cancer who will be undergoing palliative radiation to the spine. 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 Medicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for treatment of the noted condition. There was no peer-reviewed, clinically relevant, medical literature from a Medicare approved journal submitted to support this appeal. Therefore, 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: Favorable

At issue is Adderall 10-milligram tablet to treat attention deficit 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 plan has prior authorization coverage criteria that must be met prior to approval. The criteria indicates the enrollee must have a Food and Drug Administration approved indication. The Medicare approved compendia contain a citation to support the use of the drug for the enrollees noted diagnosis. Therefore, an exception to the plans coverage criteria is medically necessary.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 Forteo 620-milligram/2.48-milliliter pen injector to treat age-related 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 biologic. 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 biologic is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a tiering exception request for Metronidazole 0.75 percent gel to treat the enrollee's 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, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.Metronidazole is a generic drug on Tier 3 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/biologic 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 Diclofenac Sodium 1 percent topical gel. 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 medical records submitted at reconsideration indicate that Diclofenac Sodium 1 percent topical gel has been prescribed to treat chronic right hand costochondritis and pain and after removal of a Mediport in 2018, chronic back pain, and chronic neck pain. However, the noted conditions are off-label uses for the requested drug. The Medicare approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for the treatment of these conditions. Therefore, the requested drug 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 Otezla 30-milligram tablet to treat psoriasis vulgaris. 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 alternative drugs provided on the plans formulary list 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 Fentanyl 50 microgram/hour transdermal patch with a quantity of 15 patches every 30 days to treat chronic pain syndrome, other intervertebral disc degeneration, and spondylosis without myelopathy. 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 reconsideration level.The plan limits the amount of Fentanyl 50 microgram/hour transdermal patch to 10 patches every 30 days. The prescriber requests 15 patches every 30 days. The prescriber has not submitted documentation supporting 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.  Alternative dosing strategies are available. 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: Favorable

At issue is Glyburide 2.5-milligram tablet to treat diabetes mellitus. 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 drug at issue is not on the plans formulary. The prescriber provided patient specific clinical rationale supported by documentation, indicating why the formulary alternatives, required by the plan, would likely not be as effective as the requested drug for this diagnosis, and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm. Therefore, an exception to the plans formulary coverage criteria is medically necessary.  Among other drugs the provided medical records document a trial and failure of Glimepiride and Glipizide.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 Colesevelam (Welchol) 625-milligram tablets to treat bile salt diarrhea. 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.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 requested drug 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 Acyclovir 5-percent Ointment to treat herpesviral vesicular dermatitis. 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 the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.Your 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 Kevzara 200-milligrams/1.14-milliliter Subcutaneous Pen Injector to treat undifferentiated connective tissue disease. 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 the case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.At reconsideration a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis was given. No medical records were provided by the prescriber to support this new diagnosis. The office note provided with the appeal signed 9/10/2021 does NOT mention the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis.  It could not be determined whether the requested drug was being prescribed for a medically accepted indication. Additionally, because the drug is not covered for the diagnosis submitted, a formulary exception cannot be considered. Therefore, the requested drug 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 a request for reimbursement of Modafinil 100-milligram tablet to treat an unknown 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, 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 and supporting documentation. However, a reply from the prescriber was not received. Without the requested information, we cannot establish that the requested drug was used for a medically accepted indication. Therefore, the requested drug 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 Nuedexta 20/10-milligram capsule. 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 to support a diagnosis. In order to establish medical necessity and confirm that the requested drug is being used for a medically accepted indication, as required by Medicare, medical records supporting that medically accepted indication are required. We received medical records that support a diagnosis of pseudobulbar affect. This is a medically accepted indication for the use of Nuedexta. In addition, the prior authorization requirements have been met and the quantity requested is within the plan's limits. The requested drug is eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D.A physician reviewed your appeal and determined that the requested drug is eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Xeljanz 5-milligram tablets to treat psoriatic arthritis. 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, all alternative formulary drugs must have been tried, failed, or deemed contraindicated. In this case, the documentation did not sufficiently address why all alternative drugs provided on the plans formulary list would likely not be as effective for this diagnosis, and/or would likely cause adverse reactions 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 Lidocaine 5 percent patch to treat shoulder pain and polyarthritis, 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 Albuterol Sulfate 2.5-milligrams/3-milliliter for asthma. 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.The record states the Albuterol Sulfate is to be administered through a nebulizer in the home setting. Medicare Part B may pay for supplies necessary for the effective use of durable medical equipment, including drugs and biologicals which must be put directly into the equipment in order to achieve the therapeutic benefit of the durable medical equipment. We determined that the Part D plan is not required to cover the Albuterol Sulfate. Please consider submitting this request to Medicare Part B. The decision does not address medical necessity of the drug. It only indicates that payment cannot be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Accu-Chek Guide blood glucose test strips, which have been prescribed to monitor blood glucose levels in an enrollee with type 1 diabetes mellitus who is currently using an insulin pump. The Part D plan denied the request because coverage for the test strips would be available under Medicare Part B. Additionally, the test strips were not on the plans formulary and the documentation did not support a formulary exception.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. Supplies for testing and monitoring blood glucose levels are not considered Part D drugs and may be covered under the Medicare Part B durable medical equipment benefit. Coverage under Part D is excluded for any drug or item for which payment would be available under Part B. As such, the Accu-Chek Guide blood glucose test strips are not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D. Since the item is not eligible for coverage under Part D, a formulary exception is not relevant.This decision does not address the medical necessity or appropriateness of the requested item. It only establishes that payment cannot be made under the Medicare Part D benefit. Please submit the request to Medicare Part B.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Acyclovir 5-percent cream. 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.We requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support all formulary alternatives were tried and failed or were contraindicated. However, we did not receive the requested information.There was no documentation provided by the prescriber to support a covered diagnosis. We requested information from the prescriber but no information was received. We are not able to determine whether the requested drug was prescribed for a medically accepted indication. Therefore, the drug 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 Armour Thyroid 120 milligram 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.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 a direct member reimbursement request for a HZV vaccination. 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 reconsideration level.The plan denied the request for reimbursement because valid National Drug Codes and proof of payment were not provided for the vaccination at issue. The submitted documentation does not include valid National Drug Codes or proof of payment for the vaccination at issue.  We determined the plan is not required to cover and provide reimbursement for the vaccination at issue.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a direct member reimbursement request for a TDAP vaccination. 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 reconsideration level.The plan denied the request for reimbursement because valid National Drug Codes and proof of payment were not provided for the vaccination at issue. The submitted documentation does not include valid National Drug Codes or proof of payment for the vaccination at issue.  We determined the plan is not required to cover and provide reimbursement for the vaccination at issue.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Ztildo 1.8 percent patch to treat dorsalgia. 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. However, we did not receive the requested information.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 Aubagio 140-milligram tablet to treat 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 reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The drug at issue is not on the plans formulary. The prescriber provided has not provided valid patient specific clinical rationale, supported by documentation, indicating why the formulary alternatives, required by the plan, would likely not be as effective as the requested drug for this diagnosis, and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm. Therefore, an exception to the plans formulary coverage criteria is not approved.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is eligible for Part D coverage.