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

At issue is Tacrolimus 0.1-percent topical ointment. The Part D plan denied the request for coverage because the plans prior authorization requirements were not met.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 documentation indicates that Tacrolimus topical ointment has been prescribed to treat perioral dermatitis. 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. Therefore, the requested drug is being prescribed for a non-medically accepted indication and is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D. Since the drug is not eligible for coverage, the plans prior authorization requirements are not relevant in this case. 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 Topiramate 25 milligram tablet prescribed for unknown diagnosis. The Part D plan denied the additional reimbursement request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review of this request for coverage. We reviewed all documentation submitted for review, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. The plan submitted documentation that shows the enrollee paid full price for the requested drug at a net-work pharmacy. If an enrollee pays the full cost of a prescription, the enrollee may submit a request for reimbursement with proof of payment to ask the plan to pay its share of the cost. In this case, documentation was provided showing the Medicare approved price for the prescription was $32.63. The plan will only reimburse up to the contracted price of the drug, minus any deductible, copay or coinsurance. The plan provided documentation indicating the total cost of the drug was more than the plan allowed. We determined that the plan calculated reimbursement correctly and is not required to offer additional reimbursement.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Hydroxyzine Hydrochloride 25-milligram tablets to treat psychophysiologic insomnia. The case was auto-forwarded by the plan. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The use of the requested drug to treat the provided diagnosis is an off-label use. The Medicare approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for the treatment of this diagnosis. Therefore, the requested drug(s) is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Ajovy 225-milligram/1.5-milliliter auto-injector to treat migraine prophylaxis. 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 a tiering exception request for Nexium 40-milligram capsules 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, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.This drug is being provided by the plan under a formulary exception. It is not on the plans formulary but they have agreed to provide it at a cost sharing level assigned to all formulary exceptions. Per Medicare rules, non-formulary drugs are not eligible for a tiering exception.A physician reviewer determined that tiering exception criteria are not met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a tiering exception request for Acitretin 25-milligram capsules. 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.Acitretin is a generic drug on Tier 4 of the plans formulary. There are no generic drugs of the same type on the lower tiers of the plans formulary. 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 Bystolic 20 milligram tablets requested for a tiering exception. 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.Bystolic is a brand drug on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. There are no other 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 the appeal and determined that the plan is not required to grant the request for a tiering exception.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Lumigan 0.01-percent eye drops request for a tiering exception.  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.Lumigan is a brand drug on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. There are no other 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 the appeal and determined that the plan is not required to grant the request for a tiering exception.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Sodium Chloride 0.9-percent nebulizer 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.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 Nucynta 50-milligram tablets to treat chronic neuropathic and nociceptive pain. The Part D plan denied the request for coverage. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The requested drug is not on the plans formulary. In order to grant an exception for a drug not on the plans formulary, all alternative formulary drugs must have been tried and failed, or deemed contraindicated. In this case, the prescriber has not addressed all formulary alternatives included in the plan to treat the enrollees condition and provided patient specific clinical rationale as to why each formulary alternative would likely not be as effective as the requested drug and/or would likely cause adverse reactions or other harm. Therefore, the formulary exception criteria 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 a tiering exception request for Prolia 60-milligram\milliliter solution prefilled syringe to treat osteitis condensans. 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.Prolia is a biologic on Tier 4 of the plans formulary. There are no biologics of the same type on the lower tiers of the plans formulary to treat the same diagnosis. Therefore, this 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 Apo-Amoxi Clav 875/125 milligram prescribed for unknown diagnosis. 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 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 submitted documentation shows the enrollee purchased drugs from a pharmacy outside of the United States. Drugs purchased outside of the United States are excluded from coverage. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Lidocaine 5-percent patch to treat cervicalgia. 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 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 Vyndamax 61-milligram capsules to treat cardiac amyloidosis. 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 documentation satisfies the plans coverage criteria. The submitted documentation supports the enrollee has a diagnosis of cardiac amyloidosis, has documentation of wild type ATTR gene, and has a history of heart failure. 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 Tremfya 100-milligram/milliliter syringe 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, 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 Promethazine Hydrochloride 25-milligram tablet to treat periodic nausea and vomiting. 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 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 PMS-Valacyclovir 1000 milligram prescribed for unknown diagnosis. 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 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 submitted documentation shows the enrollee purchased drugs from a pharmacy outside of the United States. Drugs purchased outside of the United States are excluded from coverage. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Ratio-Lenoltec No 2, 300/15/15 milligram prescribed for unknown diagnosis. 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 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 submitted documentation shows the enrollee purchased drugs from a pharmacy outside of the United States. Drugs purchased outside of the United States are excluded from coverage. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

At issue is Botox 100 unit reconstituted injection solution to treat bilateral upper extremity spasticity. The Part D plan denied the request for coverage. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The requested drug is not on the plans formulary. In order to grant an exception for a drug not on the plans formulary, alternative formulary drugs must have been tried and failed, or deemed contraindicated. In this case, the enrollee has a history of traumatic brain injury with severe cognitive impairments. Documentation  supports why alternative drugs, including tizanidine and diazepam, 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. In the setting of traumatic brain injury, sedation and further cognitive difficulties are supported as associated adverse reactions.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 Gabapentin 100 milligram capsule for unknown diagnosis. 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 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 submitted documentation shows a claim for the requested drug was submitted and processed for an amount that is less than or equal to the required copayment amount. Therefore, the plan paid its share of the cost for the covered drug and the enrollee was responsible for the copay. We determined this drug was paid correctly and no further reimbursement is required by the plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Nitrofurantoin Monohydrate Macro 100 milligram capsule for unknown diagnosis. 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 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 submitted documentation shows a claim for the requested drug was submitted and processed for an amount that is less than or equal to the required copayment amount. Therefore, the plan paid its share of the cost for the covered drug and the enrollee was responsible for the copay. We determined this drug was paid correctly and no further reimbursement is required by the plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Pantoprazole Sodium 40 milligram delayed release tablet for unknown diagnosis. 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 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 submitted documentation shows a claim for the requested drug was submitted and processed for an amount that is less than or equal to the required copayment amount. Therefore, the plan paid its share of the cost for the covered drug and the enrollee was responsible for the copay. We determined this drug was paid correctly and no further reimbursement is required by the plan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

At issue is Adacel Tetanus Diphtheria and Pertussis vaccine prescribed for vaccination. 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 physicians 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 documentation submitted includes a statement from the physicians office and a credit card receipt from the enrollee. Therefore, we determined that the plan is required to reimburse the enrollee for their share of the cost for the vaccine and administration fee.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a direct member reimbursement request for Erythromycin 0.5-percent ophthalmic ointment. The case was auto-forwarded by the plan. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The submitted documentation does not include medical records or evidence of a prescribed diagnosis. As it cannot be determined the drug at issue was prescribed for a medically accepted indication, the requested drug is not eligible for reimbursement under Medicare Part D.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D reimbursement.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a tiering exception request for Gabapentin 300-milligram tablet to treat tongue pain. 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, a medically accepted indication, and a prescriber statement to support that all lower-tier drugs to treat the enrollees condition were tried and failed or were contraindicated. However, we did not receive the documentation.Gabapentin is a generic drug on Tier 2 of the plans formulary. The prescriber has not indicated if all alternatives required by the plan have been tried and failed, or why the plans lower tiered drugs would likely not be as effective as the requested drug. Therefore, this drug is not eligible for a tiering exception.A physician reviewer determined that tiering exception criteria are not met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Hetlioz 20 milligram capsules prescribed for the management of circadian rhythm sleep disorder free run type, non-24-hour sleep-wake 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 documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. The Part D plan has prior authorization requirements that have to be met before coverage of this drug is approved. The submitted documentation does not satisfy the plans coverage criteria. During this review, a request was submitted to the prescriber to address the plans coverage requirements for the medication and to provide supporting medical records. The prescriber did not respond to the request. As such, the prior authorization criteria have not been satisfied. 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 Acetaminophen/codeine tablet prescribed for an unknown diagnosis. 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. The submitted documentation shows the plan reprocessed claims for the requested drug and adjusted the amount owed due to rework to fill gaps in the enrollees true out of pocket accumulation. Medicare rules allow a Part D plan to apply deductible, coinsurance, and copayments to covered drugs. We reviewed the plans formulary and Evidence of Coverage. In this case, the enrollee is responsible for their share of any deductible or copay that was not applied at the point of sale. We determined the plan is correct in its calculation of additional amounts due to reconciliation of the enrollees true out of pocket accumulation.