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

At issue is Rituxan 100 milligram per 10 milliliter intravenous solution for desensitization of highly sensitized patient prior to lung. 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 a request for coverage of First-Lansoprazole 3 milligram per milliliter oral suspension prescribed for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease with esophagitis. 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, reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The requested drug is a compounded drug that contains bulk powders. Bulk powders do not satisfy the definition of a Part D drug and are not covered by Part D. Therefore, the First-Lansoprazole is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D. 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 Saxenda 18 milligram per 3 milliliter pen injector to treat prediabetes and obesity. 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 prescribed to treat weight gain (promote weight loss) 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 Prednisone 10 milligram tablets prescribed daily for kidney transplant. 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 also researched Medicare systems and reviewed the enrollment data available. We determined that the plan is not required to cover the drug. Medicare records indicate the enrollee received a kidney transplant, which was covered by Medicare Part A. Therefore, the transplant is considered a Medicare covered transplant and the requested drug is eligible under Medicare Part B. Medicare rules state that a drug covered under Part B cannot be covered under Part D. 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 Advair hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) 115 microgram/21 microgram per actuation aerosol inhaler to treat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The Part D plan 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 documentation submitted.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 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.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

At issue is a tiering exception request for Mesalamine 1.2 gram delayed-release tablet to treat ulcerative colitis. 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.Mesalamine is a generic drug on Tier 4 of the plans formulary. The prescriber has stated that all lower tiered drugs to treat the diagnosis have been tried and failed or provided reasons why they would likely not be as effective as the requested drug. The submitted documentation supports the enrollee has a drug allergy to the lower-tier alternatives Balsalazide and Sulfasalazine. Therefore, this drug is eligible for an exception. A physician reviewer determined that tiering exception criteria are met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Desvenlafaxine Succinate ER (extended-release) 50 milligram tablet to treat major depressive 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 plan has prior authorization requirements for this drug that must be met before coverage can be approved. The submitted documentation does not support that all of the plans requirements for coverage have 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 Pregabalin 150 milligram capsule to treat neuropathic pain due to previous trauma and chronic 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 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 Cimzia 200 milligrams per milliliter prefilled syringe kit 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 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 Otezla 30 milligram tablets to treat psoriasis and 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 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 Tacrolimus 0.5 milligram capsule prescribed daily for kidney transplant rejection 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. We also researched Medicare systems and reviewed the enrollment data available. We determined that the plan is not required to cover the drug. Medicare records indicate the enrollee received a kidney transplant, which was covered by Medicare Part A. Therefore, the transplant is considered a Medicare covered transplant and the requested drug is eligible under Medicare Part B. Medicare rules state that a drug covered under Part B cannot be covered under Part D. 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 Cosentyx Sensoready 150 milligrams per milliliter pen to treat psoriasis vulgaris. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The requested drug is not on the plans formulary. In order to grant an exception for a drug not on the plans formulary, alternative formulary drugs must have been tried, failed, or deemed contraindicated. In this case, the documentation does not support why 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 Ofev 150 milligram capsules 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.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 Acetylcysteine 20 percent solution vial via gastric feeding tube to treat constipation and gastroparesis in an enrollee with cystic 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.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 Sildenafil 20 milligram tablet to treat hypogonadism. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The use of the requested drug to treat the provided diagnosis is an off-label use. The Medicare approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for the treatment of this diagnosis. Therefore, the requested drug(s) is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Nuplazid 34 milligram capsule to treat hallucinations and drug-induced Parkinsonism in an enrollee with restless leg syndrome. 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 Ganciclovir Sodium 500 milligram 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 Silodosin 8 milligram capsules to treat the enrollees 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.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.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Omnipod 5 G6 pods to treat type 1 diabetes mellitus. The case was auto-forwarded by the plan.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.We requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support all formulary alternatives were tried and failed or were contraindicated. However, we did not receive the requested information.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.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

At issue is Dimethyl Fumurate 240 milligram capsule, 180 per 90 days, to treat multiple sclerosis. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.This drug is being prescribed for a medically accepted indication. The plan has prior authorization requirements for this drug. These requirements must be met before coverage can be extended. The documentation partially satisfies the plans coverage criteria. The prescriber has provided additional information on the signed reconsideration form, indicating that Aubagio had been discontinued. 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 Fluticasone Propionate/Salmeterol 250/50 microgram inhalation blister with device to treat the enrollee's. 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.Fluticasone/SalmeteroL is a generic drug on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. We requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support all lower-tier drugs to treat the enrollees condition were tried and failed or were contraindicated. However, we did not receive the requested information. The prescriber has not indicated if all alternatives required by the plan have been tried and failed, or why the plans lower tiered drugs/biologics would likely not be as effective as the requested drug. Therefore, this drug/biologic is not eligible for a tiering exception.A physician reviewer determined that tiering exception criteria are not met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

At issue is TD Vaccine injection prescribed for vaccination. The case was auto-forwarded by the plan.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 coverage for the non-formulary drug, Tramadol Hydrochloride ER (extended-release) 300 milligram tablet. The Part D plan auto-forwarded the case to us for review.We received the submitted documentation to perform an independent and de novo review. We reviewed all the documentation submitted.During this review, we requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support a coverable diagnosis and to address the alternative drugs included in the plans formulary to treat the diagnosis. The prescriber did not respond to the request.The submitted documentation does not include medical records or evidence of a prescribed diagnosis. Therefore, it cannot be determined if the 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 Kerendia 10 milligram tablets to treat chronic kidney disease and diabetes mellitus type 2. 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 all formulary alternatives were tried and failed or were contraindicated. However, we did not receive the requested information.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.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Humulin R 500 unit per milliliter concentrated solution to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus. The Part D plan denied the request for coverage because the prescriber indicated that the drug was being administered with a home infusion pump. As such, the drug would be available for coverage under Medicare Part B. 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 submitted to the plan indicates that the requested drug is being administered with a home infusion pump. If this were the case, the drug would be available for coverage under Medicare Part B. Drugs that are eligible for Part B coverage are excluded from Part D coverage by Medicare law. At reconsideration, it has now been noted that the requested drug is being administered with an Omnipod insulin delivery device. However, this information conflicts with the information provided to the plan. Furthermore, no medical records have been submitted to confirm that the drug is being administered by an Omnipod insulin delivery device. During this review, a request was submitted to the prescriber to clarify how the requested drug is being administered and to provide supporting medical records. The prescriber did not respond to the request. As such, due to the conflicting information provided and lack of supporting documentation, it cannot be determined if the requested drug would be available for coverage under the Medicare Part D plan.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.