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

At issue is coverage for Xeljanz extended release 11mg tablet to treat ankylosing spondylitis. 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 supports that all of the plans requirements for coverage have been satisfied. Specifically, there is evidence a tumor necrosis factor blocker was tried for at least 3 months. In addition, the requested drug is not being used at the same time or in combination with another biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) or targeted synthetic DMARD. Therefore, the plans prior authorization requirements have been met and coverage for the drug is supported.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 coverage for Buprenorphine/Naloxone 8 milligram/2 milligram tablet to treat opioid dependence. 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 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. The prescriber has provided patient-specific clinical rationale as to why the alternative drugs on the plans formulary to treat the enrollees condition would likely not be as effective as the requested drug and/or would likely cause adverse reactions or other harm. Specifically, documentation is submitted that support the enrollee was prescribed and tried the preferred formulary alternative drug, Zubsolv. However, the notes show the enrollee had burning of the mouth which felt like an allergic reaction. In addition, the documentation shows that the Buprenorphine/Naloxone films were difficult to dissolve and felt less effective. Therefore, a formulary exception is supported in this case.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 coverage for Zolpidem Tartrate 5 milligram tablet prescribed 60 tablets per 30 days to treat adjustment insomnia. 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 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.The plans quantity limit for the requested drug is 30 per 30 days. The prescriber has not provided patient-specific clinical rationale as to why the amount allowed by the plan would be ineffective in treating the diagnosis and/or would be contraindicated. Furthermore, the submitted documentation does not support the medical necessity for an exception to the plans quantity limit for the drug. 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 Dextroamphetamine/Amphetamine 20 milligram extended release 20 milligram capsules to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. 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 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 drugs on the plans formulary to treat the enrollees condition 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 validate that the enrollee has tried and failed all of the formulary alternative drugs. Therefore, the formulary exception requirements have not been met.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 Nexlizet 180 milligram/10 milligram tablet to treat mixed hyperlipidemia. 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.In order for a drug to be covered by Medicare Part D, it must be prescribed for a medically accepted indication outlined in the Medicare approved compendia. 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 coverage for Ocrevus 300 milligram per 10 milliliter vial to treat multiple sclerosis, relapsing form. 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 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 drugs on the plans formulary to treat the enrollees condition 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 validate that the enrollee has tried and failed all of the formulary alternative drugs. Therefore, the formulary exception requirements have not been met.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 Cayston 75 milligram inhaled solution to treat cystic fibrosis with pulmonary manifestations and Pseudomonas aeruginosa colonization. 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 validate 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 coverage for Briviact 100 milligram tablets to treat epilepsy, unspecified, not intractable without status epilepticus and partial onset seizures. 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 validate 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 coverage for Hyoscyamine 0.125 milligram sublingual tablet to treat the enrollees condition. 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.Hyoscyamine has not been found by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to be safe and effective, and the drug product labeling has not been approved by the FDA. Drugs that are not FDA-approved do not meet the definition of a Part D drug and are excluded from Part D coverage. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from Medicare Part D coverage.This decision does not address the medical necessity of the requested drug. It only establishes that payment cannot be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Lidocaine 5 percent patch to treat sacrococcygeal disorder. 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.In order for a drug to be covered by Medicare Part D, it must be prescribed for a medically accepted indication outlined in the Medicare approved compendia. The diagnosis initially provided to the plan for the requested drug was sacrococcygeal pain. However, 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. At reconsideration, a new diagnosis of chronic low back pain has been noted. However, this diagnosis was not initially provided to the plan. Furthermore, no medical records have been submitted to validate this additional diagnosis. As such, due to the conflicting information provided and a lack of supporting medical records, it cannot be established that the requested drug has been prescribed for a medically accepted indication.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Modafinil 100 milligram tablets to treat malignant neoplasm of cardia. 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. In order for a drug to be covered by Medicare Part D, it must be prescribed for a medically accepted indication outlined in the Medicare approved compendia. 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 coverage for Dipyridamole 75 milligram tablets to treat abscess of liver and unspecified complication of liver transplant. 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.In order for a drug to be covered by Medicare Part D, it must be prescribed for a medically accepted indication outlined in the Medicare approved compendia. 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 drug is being prescribed for non-medically accepted indications.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 Fetroja 1 gram solution reconstituted to treat bacteremia due to pseudomonas and presence of left ventricular assist device. 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. In order for a drug to be covered by Medicare Part D, it must be prescribed for a medically accepted indication outlined in the Medicare approved compendia. 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 coverage for Quinine Sulfate 324 milligram capsule to treat muscle cramping, end stage renal disease, dependence on renal dialysis. 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.In order for a drug to be covered by Medicare Part D, it must be prescribed for a medically accepted indication outlined in the Medicare approved compendia. 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 drug is being prescribed for non-medically accepted indications.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 Wegovy 0.25 milligrams per 0.5 milliliter pen injector to treat obesity. 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.Drugs prescribed to treat obesity and/or to promote weight loss are excluded from the Part D coverage. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from Medicare Part D coverage. This decision does not address the medical necessity of the drug. It only establishes that payment cannot be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Zonisamide 50 milligram capsule to treat chronic daily headache. 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. In order for a drug to be covered by Medicare Part D, it must be prescribed for a medically accepted indication outlined in the Medicare approved compendia. 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 a tiering exception request for Eliquis 5 milligram tablet for prophylaxis of thromboembolic events in an enrollee with a history of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. 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 available documentation.Eliquis 5 milligram tablet is a brand drug on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. There are no brand drugs of the same type to treat the same condition on the lower tiers of the plans formulary. If there are no drugs of the same type on a lower tier, the drug is not eligible for a tiering exception. A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for a tiering exception.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Butalbital/Acetaminophen/Caffeine/Codeine 50/300/40/30 capsule to treat migraine without aura, not intractable, with status migrainosus. 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. In order for a drug to be covered by Medicare Part D, it must be prescribed for a medically accepted indication outlined in the Medicare approved compendia. 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 a tiering exception request for Mounjaro 5 milligrams per 0.5 milliliter solution pen injector to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus without complication. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all available documentation.Mounjaro is a brand drug on Tier 2 of the plans formulary. There are no brand drugs of the same type to treat the same condition on the lower tiers of the plans formulary. If there are no drugs of the same type on a lower tier, the drug is not eligible for a tiering exception. This decision is for plan year 2024.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for a tiering exception.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Pimecrolimus 1 percent cream to treat eczema, dermatitis, and itching. 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 a step therapy requirement that must be met before coverage of this drug will be provided. The submitted documentation does not support that the plans step therapy requirement has been satisfied. Furthermore, the documentation does not support the medical necessity for an exception to the plans step therapy requirement.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: At-Risk Determination
Decision: Unfavorable

A reconsideration request was auto-forwarded from the plan to review the at-risk determination. The plan has imposed a restriction of morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) for opioids on the enrollee. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all available documentation.The records show the plan imposed a restriction of morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) on the enrollee effective November 14, 2023. Beginning September 11, 2023, the plan attempted to contact multiple prescribers concerning your opioid use. The prescribers did not respond to the requests. On October 19, 2023, the plan told you that they planned to limit your access to prescription opioids through the drug management program to 90 MMEs per day. On November 14, 2023, the plan determined that they would not cover any prescription opioid pain medication exceeding the 90 MMEs limit. The plan has tried multiple times to contact your prescriber(s) beginning September 11, 2023, without success. Your prescribers have failed to respond to any and all inquiries. After completing our review, we have determined that your use of these drugs is unsafe.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined the plans restriction is appropriate, as there is a risk of obtaining an unsafe quantity of frequently abused drugs.In conclusion, the decision of the Qualified Independent Contractor (QIC) is unfavorable.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Acetaminophen extra strength 500 milligram tablet to treat osteoarthritis, unspecified site. The Part D plan denied the request for coverage and then auto-forwarded the case to us for review.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all available documentation.Acetaminophen extra strength 500 milligram tablet is available over the counter without a prescription. Drugs available without a prescription, even when a prescription has been written, are excluded from coverage under Medicare Part D. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from Medicare Part D coverage. This decision does not address the medical necessity of the drug. It only establishes that payment cannot be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Acyclovir Sodium 50 milligrams per milliliter vial to treat sepsis, unspecified organism and encephalopathy. The Part D plan approved the request for coverage and then auto-forwarded the case to us for review.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all available documentation.In order for a drug to be covered by Medicare Part D, it must be prescribed for a medically accepted indication outlined in the Medicare approved compendia. 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 drug is being prescribed for non-medically accepted indications.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 Dupixent 300 milligrams per 2 milliliter pen injector to treat severe bullous pemphigoid. 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 use of the requested drug to treat bullous pemphigoid is a non-Food and Drug Administration (FDA) use as noted in the Medicare approved compendium Micromedex. Therefore, the drug is determined to be appropriate to treat bullous pemphigoid.However, 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.