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

At issue is Briviact 50 milligram tablets to treat localization-related (focal) (partial) idiopathic epilepsy and epileptic syndromes with seizures. 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 coverage for Lidocaine-Prilocaine 2.5-2.5 percent topical cream to treat pain associated with dorsalgia, systemic lupus erythematosus, and osteoporosis. 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 Xeljanz 5 milligram tablets to treat granuloma annulare. 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 Otezla 10 milligram/20 milligram/30 milligram tablet therapy pack to treat severe erosive oral, esophageal, and vulvar lichen planus. 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 Dronabinol 5 milligram capsules to treat weight loss due to anoxic brain damage. 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 anorexia and/or weight loss, unrelated to AIDS wasting or cachexia due to certain chronic diseases, 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 Humira Pen 80 milligram per 0.8 milliliter pen injector to treat granuloma annulare. 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 coverage for Repatha Sureclick 140 milligram per milliliter subcutaneous injection pen prescribed to prevent cardiac events in an enrollee with established cardiovascular disease. 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 prescriber has not provided patient specific clinical rationale as to why the formulary alternative drug, Praluent, 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 coverage for Zelboraf 240 milligram tablet to treat metastatic adult-onset Wilms tumor with BRAF mutation. 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 Medicare approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for treatment of the noted condition. The prescriber did not submit any clinically relevant, peer-reviewed medical literature from a Medicare approved journal to support this appeal. As such, 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 coverage for Zolpidem Tartrate 10 milligram tablet to treat insomnia. The Part D plan denied the request for coverage because there was not sufficient documentation/information from the prescriber to validate that the plans coverage requirements for the drug were 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 plan has prior authorization requirements for this drug that must be met before coverage can be approved. No medical records have been submitted for review. Therefore, it is not possible to confirm that 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 Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride 10 milligram tablet to treat chronic muscle spasms. 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 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. As noted in the Medicare approved compendia and outlined in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) product label, Cyclobenzaprine is indicated as an adjunct to rest and physical therapy for relief of muscle spasm associated with acute, painful musculoskeletal conditions. Cyclobenzaprine should be used only for short periods (up to 2 or 3 weeks) because adequate evidence of effectiveness for more prolonged use is not available. As such, 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 prescribed as anticoagulation therapy in an enrollee with chronic 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 documentation submitted, including the case file from the plan and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.Eliquis is a brand drug on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. There are no brand drugs of the same type to treat the noted condition on the lower tiers of the plans formulary. If there are no brand drugs of the same type on a lower tier, the drug is not eligible for a tiering exception.A physician reviewer determined that tiering exception criteria have not been met. The drug will continued to be covered at the Tier 3 copay.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a request for coverage of Rifaximin powder. 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 a bulk powder. Bulk powders do not satisfy the definition of a Part D drug and are excluded from Part D coverage. Therefore, the Rifaximin powder is not eligible for coverage under Medicare 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: Partially Favorable

At issue is coverage for Testosterone Cypionate 200 milligram per milliliter injection solution. Also at issue is a request for reimbursement for Testosterone Cypionate purchased on August 1, 2022. The Part D plan denied the requests because there was no documentation submitted from the prescriber to determine if the plans coverage requirements for the drug were 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 prescriber statement and medical records submitted at reconsideration support that the requested drug has been prescribed to treat male hypogonadism in an enrollee with history of prostate cancer, which is a medically accepted indication for the requested drug. In addition, the provided diagnosis supports that the plans coverage requirements for the drug have been met. As such, the documentation submitted at reconsideration supports coverage of the drug. However, no proof of payment has been submitted for the drug purchased on August 1, 2022. Reimbursement for the drug requires proof of payment. As such, payment for the drug already purchased on August 1, 2022, is not covered. A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is eligible for Part D coverage. However, reimbursement cannot be provided for the drug that was already purchased without proof of payment.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Nexletol 180 milligram tablet to treat hyperlipidemia in an enrollee with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. 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 prescriber has not provided patient specific clinical rationale as to why the formulary alternative drug required by the plan, Praluent, 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 coverage for Insulin Lispro 100 unit per milliliter vial to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus. 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 prescriber has not addressed all formulary alternatives required by the plan to treat the enrollees condition and provided patient specific clinical rationale with supporting documentation 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 coverage for Gemtesa 75 milligram tablet to treat the overactive bladder symptoms, including urge incontinence. 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 a step therapy requirement for the requested drug. The submitted does not support that the alternative drug required by the plan has been tried and failed. Additionally, the documentation does not include any valid reasons to 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 coverage for Mounjaro 5 milligram per 0.5 milliliter subcutaneous injection pen to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia with long-term current use of insulin, complicated by nephropathy and neuropathy. 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 prescriber has not addressed all of the formulary alternatives required by 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 FreeStyle Libre 2 Reader device to monitor glucose level for an enrollee with the diagnosis of diabetes.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.We determined that the plan is not required to cover FreeStyle Libre 2 Reader device. Supplies for testing and monitoring blood glucose levels are not considered Part D drugs. Although this item is not covered under Part D, it may be covered under Part B. Please submit your request to Medicare Part B. This decision does not address the medical necessity or appropriateness of the testing strips. 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 Xifaxan 550 milligram tablet prescribed to prevent hepatic encephalopathy in an enrollee with cirrhosis of the liver and elevated ammonia levels. 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 a tiering exception request for Xarelto 10 milligram tablet prescribed as anticoagulation therapy in an enrollee with history of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. 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.Xarelto is a brand drug on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. There are no brand drugs of the same type to treat the noted condition on the lower tiers of the plans formulary. If there are no brand drugs of the same type on a lower tier, the drug is not eligible for a tiering exception. A physician reviewer determined that tiering exception criteria have not been met.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride 10 milligram tablet to treat myofascial spasms associated with chronic musculoskeletal conditions. 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 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. As noted in the Medicare approved compendia and outlined in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) product label, Cyclobenzaprine is indicated as an adjunct to rest and physical therapy for relief of muscle spasm associated with acute, painful musculoskeletal conditions. Cyclobenzaprine should be used only for short periods (up to 2 or 3 weeks) because adequate evidence of effectiveness for more prolonged use is not available. As such, 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 Ciprodex 0.3 percent/0.1 percent suspension to treat frequent tracheostomy infections and tracheostomy granuloma. 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 coverage for Octagam 20 gram per 200 milliliter intravenous solution to treat treatment-resistant coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) vasculitis and/or Henoch Schonlein Purpura. 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.