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

At issue is Eliquis 5 milligram tablet to treat an unspecified diagnosis. The Part D plan auto-forwarded 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 plan provided documentation that shows Eliquis was purchased on the dates of fill requested by the enrollee for an amount that is less than or equal to the required low-income subsidy (LIS) copayment. Therefore, we determined the requested drug was paid correctly and no further reimbursement is required by the plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Entresto 24 milligram tablet to treat an unspecified diagnosis. The Part D plan auto-forwarded 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 plan provided documentation that shows Entresto was purchased on the date of fill requested by the enrollee for an amount that is less than or equal to the required low-income subsidy (LIS) copayment. Therefore, we determined the requested drug was paid correctly and no further reimbursement is required by the plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Gabapentin 300 milligram capsule to treat an unspecified diagnosis. The Part D plan auto-forwarded 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 plan provided documentation that shows Gabapentin was purchased on the date of fill requested by the enrollee for an amount that is less than or equal to the required low-income subsidy (LIS) copayment. Therefore, we determined the requested drug was paid correctly and no further reimbursement is required by the plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Hydralazine 50 milligram tablet to treat an unspecified diagnosis. The Part D plan auto-forwarded 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 plan provided documentation that shows Hydralazine was purchased on the date of fill requested by the enrollee for an amount that is less than or equal to the required low-income subsidy (LIS) copayment. Therefore, we determined the requested drug was paid correctly and no further reimbursement is required by the plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Linezolid 600 milligram tablet to treat an unspecified diagnosis. The Part D plan auto-forwarded 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 plan provided documentation that shows Linezolid was purchased on the date of fill requested by the enrollee for an amount that is less than or equal to the required low-income subsidy (LIS) copayment. Therefore, we determined the requested drug was paid correctly and no further reimbursement is required by the plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Metolazone 2.5 milligram tablet to treat an unspecified diagnosis. The Part D plan auto-forwarded 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 plan provided documentation that shows Metolazone was purchased on the dates of fill requested by the enrollee for an amount that is less than or equal to the required low-income subsidy (LIS) copayment. Therefore, we determined the requested drug was paid correctly and no further reimbursement is required by the plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Potassium Chloride extended release 10 milliequivalent tablet to treat an unspecified diagnosis. The Part D plan auto-forwarded 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 plan provided documentation that shows Potassium Chloride was purchased on the dates of fill requested by the enrollee for an amount that is less than or equal to the required low-income subsidy (LIS) copayment. Therefore, we determined the requested drug was paid correctly and no further reimbursement is required by the plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Sulfamethoxazole/Trimethoprim 800/160 milligram tablet to treat an unspecified diagnosis. The Part D plan auto-forwarded 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 plan provided documentation that shows Sulfamethoxazole/Trimethoprim was purchased on the dates of fill requested by the enrollee for an amount that is less than or equal to the required low-income subsidy (LIS) copayment. Therefore, we determined the requested drug was paid correctly and no further reimbursement is required by the plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Torsemide 20 milligram tablet to treat an unspecified diagnosis. The Part D plan auto-forwarded 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 plan provided documentation that shows Torsemide was purchased on the date of fill requested by the enrollee for an amount that is less than or equal to the required low-income subsidy (LIS) copayment. Therefore, we determined the requested drug was paid correctly and no further reimbursement is required by the plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

At issue is Twinrix vaccine injection prescribed for vaccination. 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 vaccine at the prescriber's office. The plans Evidence of Coverage states that payment for vaccines including administration fee is required up front from the enrollee when provided at an out of network pharmacy or prescribers office. 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 prescribers office and a credit card statement indicating full payment was made for the vaccine. Therefore, we determined the reimbursement criteria have been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Chloramphenicol/Amphotericin/Boric Acid/Sulfamethoxazole powder otic puffer prescribed to treat fungal otitis externa. 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.Drugs that fall into the category of bulk powders do not meet the definition of a Part D drug. The requested drug 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.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Amlodipine 10 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 the enrollee requested the Part D plan to provide reimbursement for the requested drug purchased from a network pharmacy. The drug name was acquired via phone call with the enrollee. However, the documentation does not include the quantity and days supply of the requested drug, the National Drug Code (NDC), and the prescribing physicians name, address and National Provider Identifier (NPI) number. Therefore, we determined that the plan is not required to reimburse the enrollee without the required information.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Carvedilol 6.25 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 the enrollee requested the Part D plan to provide reimbursement for the requested drug purchased from a network pharmacy. The drug name was acquired via phone call with the enrollee. However, the documentation does not include the quantity and days supply of the requested drug, the National Drug Code (NDC), and the prescribing physicians name, address and National Provider Identifier (NPI) number. Therefore, we determined that the plan is not required to reimburse the enrollee without the required information.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Lap Swim Senior, Kaye Gorham at Alf Sorensen Community Center and pool membership fee . The Part D plan denied 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.The request is for a medical service and does not meet the definition of a Part D drug. Therefore, the requested service is excluded from coverage under the Part D benefit and not eligible for reimbursement.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

At issue is Methylphenidate Hydrochloride 5 milligram tablet to treat cancer-related fatigue. 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 the enrollee has satisfied the plans prior authorization coverage criteria. We received additional documentation and included it in the review.The documentation satisfies the plans coverage criteria. The medical records indicate the enrollee was prescribed the drug for cancer-related fatigue. Other causes of fatigue were ruled out.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

At issue is Tetanus Diphtheria and Acellular Pertussis (TDAP) Adacel vaccine injection prescribed for vaccination. 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 vaccine at the prescriber's office. The plans Evidence of Coverage states that payment for vaccines including administration fee is required up front from the enrollee when provided at an out of network pharmacy or prescribers office. 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 prescribers office and a cancelled check indicating full payment was made for the vaccine and administration fee. Therefore, we determined the reimbursement criteria have been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Wartpeel in Remedium 17 percent compound gel 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. 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 ingredients do not meet the definition of a Part D drug. The requested drug is consistent of bulk ingredients and is excluded from coverage under Part D 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 reimbursement for Tramadol Hydrochloride 50 milligram tablet 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 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 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 Irbesartan 150 milligram tablets, 60 for 30 days, to treat hypertension. 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 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.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. We received additional documentation and included it in the review.The plan limits the amount of Irbesartan 150 milligram tablets to 31 per 31 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 a tiering exception request for Linzess 145 microgram capsule to treat the enrollee's 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.Linzess is a brand drug on Tier 4 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 a tiering exception request for Ofev 150 milligram capsule to treat idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. 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.This drug is being provided by the plan at the cost sharing level of the Specialty tier. Specialty tier drugs are not available for a tiering exception per Medicare rules. A physician reviewer determined that tiering exception criteria are not met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Sildenafil 50 milligram tablet to treat 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. 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. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Otezla tablets (28-day tablet dose pack with 10, 20, and 30 milligrams tablets and 30 milligram tablets) to treat plaque psoriasis. 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 Tadalafil 5 milligram tablet to treat benign prostatic hypertrophy with nocturia. 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, in the form of medical records (or lack of records), and prescriber statement, do 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 Budesonide 0.5 milligram per 2 milliliter solution. 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 plan does not offer supplemental (additional) coverage for this drug. If the enrollee purchased drugs that are excluded, the enrollee must pay for them. This decision does not address the medical necessity or appropriateness 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 a tiering exception request for Linzess 72 microgram capsule to treat 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 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 Retacrit 3000 units per milliliter solution to treat anemia due to chronic kidney disease not on dialysis. 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 a tiering exception request for Ozempic 0.25 or 0.50 milligram per dose subcutaneous solution to treat type 2 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. 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 Xeljanz Extended Release (XR) 11 milligram tablet to treat rheumatoid 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, 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.