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

At issue is Ukoniq 200 milligram tablets prescribed as four tablets once daily for relapsed marginal zone lymphoma. The Part D plan denied your request; the plan stated the drug was eligible for coverage under Medicare Part A or Part B.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read your 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 asked the prescriber to send us information regarding the enrollees condition. We also asked for medical records or other documentation to show why the enrollee needs the medication. Specifically, we asked for records to show why other medications on the plan's formulary would not work for the enrollee. We received the documentation and included it in our review.The record indicates the provider contacted the drug manufacturer, who stated the drug was eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D. The documentation does not indicate that this oral medication was being administered incident to a physician service or related to an inpatient or hospice benefit. Therefore, this drug is eligible for consideration of coverage under Medicare Part D. The record shows the physician prescribed Ukoniq to treat relapsed marginal zone lymphoma. The enrollee was initially diagnosed in 2005, and treated with Rituximab, Cyclophosphamide, Vincristine Sulfate, and Prednisone. The disease was in remission for seven years. Next, the enrollee was treated with Zevalin and again, achieved diseased remission. However, in 2016, the enrollee experienced disease progression and recurrence. The enrollee was treated with Bendamustine and Rituxan, followed by maintenance Rituxan. Recent imaging results show relapsed disease. The Medicare approved compendia support the use of the requested drug to treat the enrollees condition. However, 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. The prescriber states that the alternative formulary drugs are less tolerable and less efficacious than Ukoniq. However, the medical records and medical literature do not support this statement and show why other drugs on the plans formulary would not work for the enrollee. A physician reviewed your appeal and determined that the plan is not required to cover Ukoniq.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Nucynta 75 milligram tablets prescribed 2 tablets a day for chronic pain. The Part D plan denied your request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read your 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 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 condition.  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 Nucynta.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Testosterone 30-milligrams/1.5-millilitere Pump to treat hypogonadism in male. The Part D plan denied the request. The requested drug is not on the plans formulary. We performed 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 prescriber has not provided patient specific clinical rationale, supported by medical records, as to why all alternatives required by the plan would likely not be as effective as the requested drug; and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm. Therefore, an exception to the plans formulary coverage criteria is not supported.Our physician reviewer's opinion is that formulary exception criteria are not met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Privigen 10% 600-milliliter vial intravenous to treat idiopathic progressive neuropathy. The Part D plan denied the request stating that the provided diagnosis is a non-medically accepted indication. We performed 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 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 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 Dronabinol 2.5-milligram capsule to treat nausea and vomiting secondary to gastroparesis. The Part D plan denied the request stating that the provided diagnosis is a non-medically accepted indication. We performed 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 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 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 Synthroid 125 microgram tablet prescribed for hypothyroidism. The Part D plan denied your request for a tiering exception.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read your case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. Synthroid 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 condition. Therefore, this drug is not eligible for a tiering exception.A physician reviewed your appeal and determined that the plan is not required to grant your request for a tiering exception.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Cresemba 186-milligram capsule for aspergillosis prophylaxis in an immunocompromised host. The Part D plan denied the request stating that the provided diagnosis is a non-medically accepted indication. We performed 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 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 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 Neurontin 100 milligram capsule prescribed three times daily for interstitial cystitis. The Part D plan denied the request. We performed an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The documentation shows the doctor prescribed Neurontin to treat the enrollees interstitial cystitis. However, the Medicare approved compendia do not support the use of this drug for the enrollees condition. A physician reviewed your appeal and determined that the plan is not required to cover Neurontin.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Edarbyclor 40-12.5-milligram tablet to treat hypertension. The Part D plan denied the request.  We performed 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 documentation does not satisfy the plans coverage criteria. The prescriber has not sufficiently addressed the plans coverage criteria and/or the coverage criteria are not satisfied by the provided medical records. A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You requested Accu-chek aviva plus test strips prescribed for the diagnosis of Type 2 diabetes mellitus. The Part D plan denied your request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read your 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 determined that the plan is not required to cover Accu-chek aviva plus test strips because it is not considered a medical supply directly associated with the injection of insulin. Although, this drug is not covered under Part D, it may be covered under Part B. Please submit your request to Medicare Part B. 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 Hetlioz 20 milligram capsules prescribed as directed for non-24 hour sleep/wake cycle. The Part D plan denied coverage.We performed an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read your case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any records submitted at the reconsideration level. The prescriber statement provided does not show the enrollee has satisfied the plan's coverage criteria.A physician reviewed your appeal and determined that the plan is not required to cover Hetlioz.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Estradiol 10 microgram vaginal tablet. The Part D plan denied your request for a tiering exception.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read your 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 asked your prescriber to send us information about your condition. We also asked for medical records or other documentation to show why you need the medication. Specifically, we asked for medical records to show why similar medications on the lower tiers would not work for you. However, we did not receive the documentation.Estradiol vaginal tablet is a generic drug on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. The record does not include medical records to support that all drugs available on lower tiers to treat your condition have been tried or deemed contraindicated. Therefore, this drug is not eligible for a tiering exception.A physician reviewed your appeal and determined that the plan is not required to grant your request for a tiering exception.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Gammagard Liquid 10% Vial prescribed for myasthenia gravis without acute exacerbation. The Part D plan denied your request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read your 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 prescriber indicates you have not tried and failed the plans formulary, alternative drugs.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 medical records do not support why other drugs on the plans formulary would not work for you. A physician reviewed your appeal and determined that the plan is not required to cover Gammagard liquid 10%.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Colesevelam Hydrochloride prescribed daily for pure hypercholesterolemia. 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. We asked the prescriber to send us information regarding the enrollees condition. We also asked for medical records or other documentation to show why the medication was needed. Specifically, we asked for records to show why other medications on the plan's formulary would not work. We received the documentation and included it in our review.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 medical records do not support why all other drugs on the plans formulary to treat your condition would not work for you. A physician reviewed your appeal and determined that the plan is not required to cover Colesevelam Hydrochloride.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Pomalyst 4 milligram capsules. The Part D plan denied your request for a tiering exception.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read your case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. This drug is included on Tier 4 of the plans formulary. This Tier is identified as a Specialty Tier. The plan is not required to grant a tier exception for drugs available on their Specialty Tier. Therefore, a tier exception cannot be considered.A physician reviewed your appeal and determined that the plan is not required to grant your request for a tiering exception.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Tibsovo 250 milligram tablets to treat the indicated diagnoses of neoplasm of uncertain behavior of appendix and appendix adenocarcinoma with neuroendocrine features. The Part D plan denied the request stating that the provided diagnoses are non-medically accepted indications.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read your 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 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 an 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 your appeal and determined an exception request based on medical necessity cannot be considered because the requested drug, as prescribed, does not meet the definition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, Tibsovo 250 milligram tablets is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D for the noted condition.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is CombiPatch 0.05 milligram/0.14 milligram transdermal patch prescribed for hormone replacement therapy. The Part D plan denied your request for a tiering exception.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read your case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. CombiPatch is a brand name drug on Tier 4 of the plans formulary. There are no brand name drugs of the same type on the lower cost sharing tiers. Therefore, this drug is not eligible for a tiering exception.A physician reviewed your appeal and determined that the plan is not required to grant your request for a tiering exception.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Zenpep Delayed Release Capsule prescribed for exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. The Part D plan denied your request for a tiering exception.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read your case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. Zenpep Delayed Release Capsule is a biologic drug on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. There are no biologic drugs of the same type on the lower cost sharing tiers. Therefore, this drug is not eligible for a tiering exception.A physician reviewed your appeal and determined that the plan is not required to grant your request for a tiering exception.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Novolog FlexPen 20 units prescribed four times daily for type 2 diabetes. The Part D plan denied the request for a tiering exception.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.Novolog FlexPen 100 units per milliliter is a brand drug on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. There are no brand drugs of the same type on the lower cost sharing tiers. Therefore, this drug is not eligible for a tiering exception.A physician reviewed your appeal and determined that the plan is not required to grant your request for a tiering exception.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Valium 5 milligram tablet prescribed for spinal stenosis. The Part D plan denied your request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read your 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 asked your prescriber to send us information regarding your condition. We also asked for medical records or other documentation to show why you need the medication. Specifically, we asked for records to show why other medications on the plan's formulary would not work for you.  However, we did not receive the documentation. 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 medical records do not support why other drugs on the plans formulary would not work for you. A physician reviewed your appeal and determined that the plan is not required to Valium.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is ZTlido Patch 1.8% prescribed for chronic pain. The Part D plan denied your request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read your case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. Chronic pain is not a medically accepted indication for using ZTilido Patch 1.8%. The Medicare approved compendia do not support the use of this drug for your condition. A physician reviewed your appeal and determined that the plan is not required to cover ZTlido Patch 1.8%.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You requested Dronabinol 2.5 milligram capsules prescribed for severe weight loss and loss of appetite. The Part D plan denied your request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read your 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 documentation shows your doctor prescribed Dronabinol to treat your severe weight loss and loss of appetite. However, the Medicare approved compendia do not support the use of this drug for your condition. A physician reviewed your appeal and determined that the plan is not required to cover Dronabinol.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You requested Mycophenolate Mofetil 25 milligram oral capsule. The Part D plan denied your request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read your 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 documentation shows your doctor prescribed Mycophenolate Mofetil to treat pulmonary fibrosis secondary to coronavirus disease. 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 condition.  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 Mycophenolate Mofetil.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Envarsus Extended Release 1-milligram tablet to treat liver transplant status with liver injury. The Part D plan denied the request stating that the provided diagnosis is a non-medically accepted indication. We performed 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 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 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

You requested Hyophen tablet prescribed for interstitial cystitis. The Part D Plan denied your request because Medicare Part D does not cover less than effective Drug Efficacy Study Implementation drugs. We received a reconsideration request. We performed an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read your 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 documentation shows Hyophen is identified as a less than effective Drug Efficacy Study Implementation drug on the Medicare website.We determined that the plan is not required to cover Hyophen. Medicare Part D does not cover less than effective Drug Efficacy Study Implementation drugs. If you purchase drugs that are excluded, you must pay for them out-of-pocket. This decision does not address the medical necessity or appropriateness of the requested drug. It only establishes that payment cannot be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.