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

At issue is coverage for Xifaxan 550 milligram tablet. The Part D plan denied the request for coverage because the drug was prescribed for a non-medically accepted indication. 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 diagnosis initially provided to the plan for the requested drug was small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO). 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, it has now been noted that the enrollee also has irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea. However, no medical records have been submitted to validate this newly added diagnosis and the previously submitted medical records do not indicate that the enrollee has irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea.As such, due to the conflicting information provided and a lack of supporting medical records to validate a diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea, it cannot be determined if the requested drug is being 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 Venclexta 100 milligram tablets to treat T-cell prolymphocytic leukemia. 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 Medicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for treatment of the noted diagnosis. 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. This decision does not speak to the medical necessity of this drug; it speaks to whether the Part D drug plan is responsible for payment under the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) rules.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 Lidocaine/Prilocaine 2.5/2.5 percent topical cream prescribed for topical anesthesia prior to dialysis procedures. 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. We also researched Medicare systems and reviewed the enrollment data available.Medicare systems show that the enrollee currently has end stage renal disease coverage. Drugs used for dialysis-related purposes for enrollees with end stage renal disease coverage that are receiving dialysis would be available for coverage under Medicare Part B, as these drugs are included in the Medicare Part B bundled payment to an end stage renal disease dialysis facility. Drugs covered under Medicare Part B are not available for coverage under Medicare Part D. As such, the requested drug is not available for coverage under Medicare Part D.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 Zelboraf 240 milligram tablet to treat chronic myeloproliferative disease. The Part D plan auto-forwarded the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.Medicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug as prescribed, for treatment of the noted diagnosis. 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 the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Acyclovir 5 percent ointment to treat aphthous ulcer. 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 coverage for Zolpidem Tartrate 10 milligram tablet to treat insomnia. 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 documentation submitted.The plan has a step therapy requirement for coverage of this drug. The prescriber has not indicated that the alternative drug(s) required by the plan have been tried and failed. In addition, the prescriber has not provided patient-specific clinical rationale as to why the plans required step therapy drug(s) would likely not be as effective as the requested. As such, the plans step therapy requirement has not been met. Furthermore, the documentation does not support 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: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Entyvio 300 milligrams for solution to treat refractory microscopic 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.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 Nubeqa 300 milligram tablet to treat metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. 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. Medicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug as prescribed, for treatment of the noted diagnosis. 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 the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Repatha Sureclick 140 milligram per milliliter to treat familial hyperlipidemia. 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 the most recent low-density lipoprotein cholesterol laboratory study that was ordered on October 5, 2022, so we can determine if the enrollee has satisfied the plans prior authorization coverage criteria. However, we did not receive the requested information.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 Armodafinil 200 milligram tablet to treat Parkinson's disease and headaches. 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 Ramelteon 8 milligram tablet to treat insomnia. The Part D plan denied the request 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 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, in the form of medical records (or lack of records) and prescriber statement, do not support why the formulary alternatives required by the plan would likely not be as effective for this diagnosis and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a tiering exception request for Repatha SureClick 140 milligram per milliliter solution for subcutaneous injection to treat hyperlipidemia with history of ischemic heart disease. 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.Repatha SureClick is a biologic drug on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. There are no biologic drugs of the same type on the lower tiers of the plans formulary to treat the same diagnosis. Therefore, this biologic 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 Lokelma 5 gram (GM) oral packet to treat hyperkalemia. 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 Diclofenac Sodium 1 percent gel. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the submitted documentation to perform an independent and de novo review.We requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support a covered diagnosis and that the enrollee has satisfied the plans prior authorization coverage criteria. However, we did not receive the requested information.The submitted documentation does not include medical records or evidence of a prescribed diagnosis. Therefore, it cannot be determined if the drug was 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 Lidocaine 5 percent patch to treat lumbago with sciatica. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.We requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support the enrollee has satisfied the plans prior authorization coverage criteria. However, we did not receive the requested information.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 Pregabalin 75 milligram capsule. 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 documentation to support a diagnosis and to support the prior authorization criteria has been met. However, we did not receive the requested information.The submitted documentation does not include medical records or clinical evidence of a prescribed diagnosis. Therefore, it cannot be determined if the drug was 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 Nurtec 75 milligram orally disintegrating tablet, 30 per 30 days, to treat migraine headaches. The Part D plan partially 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 requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support the quantity prescribed was medically necessary for the enrollee.) We received additional documentation and included it in the review.The plan limits the amount of Nurtec 75 milligram orally disintegrating tablet to 18 per 30 days. The prescriber has not indicated that the number of doses of the requested drug allowed by the plan would likely be ineffective in treating the diagnosis or would be likely to cause harm. Therefore, an exception to the plans coverage criteria is not supported. A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Lidocaine 5 percent patch to treat dorsalgia. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.We requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support the enrollee has satisfied the plans prior authorization coverage criteria. However, we did not receive the requested information.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 coverage for Ventolin Hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) 90 microgram per actuation aerosol inhaler to treat moderate persistent asthma. 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.During this review, we requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support that all formulary alternatives were tried and failed, or were contraindicated. The prescriber did not respond to the request.Ventolin HFA aerosol inhaler is not on the plans formulary. In order to grant an exception for a drug that is 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 plans formulary alternative drugs to treat the enrollees condition would likely not be as effective and/or would likely cause adverse reactions 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 Farxiga 10 milligram tablet prescribed for an unspecified diagnosis. The Part D plan denied the request for additional reimbursement. We received a case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. The plan submitted documentation that shows the enrollee is requesting reimbursement for the Farxiga filled on May 14, 2022 and June 17, 2022. According to the plans Evidence of Coverage, reimbursement is calculated based on the total cost of the drug, minus the required copayment amount, and minus the difference between what the plan normally pays for the drug and what the pharmacy charged the enrollee while in the cost share stages. During the coverage gap stage, the enrollee pays 25 percent of the plans approved price for drugs. The submitted claim information shows the enrollees cost share was calculated based on a portion of copay in the initial coverage stage and 25 percent of the coverage gap discount for the remaining amount for date of fill May 14, 2022. The enrollee was in the coverage gap stage for date of fill June 17, 2022 and paid a coinsurance of 25 percent of the approved amount. 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 Neulasta 6 milligram kit prescribed for 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. Drugs furnished Incident To a physicians service are excluded from Medicare Part D coverage. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Botox 200 unit vial prescribed to treat vestibular migraine. The Part D plan auto-forwarded the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we reviewed all documentation submitted. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.The plans Evidence of Coverage states, limits and restrictions are placed on drugs that are refilled too soon. The submitted documentation shows the enrollee purchased the requested drug on December 29, 2021. Therefore, the claim for fill date January 3, 2022 was rejected at point of sale for refill too soon, and the amount charged to the enrollee was an out-of-pocket expense. 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 Tadalafil 5 milligram tablet. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the submitted documentation to perform an independent and de novo review.We requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support a covered diagnosis and that the enrollee has satisfied the plans prior authorization coverage criteria and the quantity prescribed was medically necessary for the enrollee. We received additional documentation and included it in the review.The submitted documentation does not include medical records or evidence of a prescribed diagnosis. Therefore, it cannot be determined if the drug was 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 Belsomra 20 milligram tablet to treat 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.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. We received additional documentation and included it in the review.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.