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

At issue is reimbursement for Methadone. The Part D plan denied the request.We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read your case file carefully. We reviewed all documentation submitted at the reconsideration level. 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. Without a diagnosis, it cannot be established that the requested drug is being prescribed for a medically accepted indication. As such, the requested drug does not satisfy the definition of a Medicare Part D drug. A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Kerendia 20 milligram tablet to treat chronic kidney disease associated with type 2 diabetes. 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, including the case file from the plan and any information submitted at the reconsideration level.During this review, a request was submitted to the prescriber to address the plans coverage requirements for this drug and to provide supporting medical records. We received additional documentation and included it in the review.The plan has prior authorization requirements that need to be met before coverage of the drug will be provided. The submitted documentation does not confirm that all of the plans coverage requirements have been satisfied, as the prescriber did not submit any medical records, as requested, to validate that these requirements were met. Furthermore, the documentation does not support the medical necessity for an exception to the plans prior authorization requirements.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Vancomycin 125 milligram capsule. The Part D plan auto forwarded the request.We received the submitted documentation to perform an independent and de novo 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. Of note, the issue of reimbursement to the enrollee not addressed at this time as drug has not been approved.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 Albuterol Sulfate 108 microgram actuation inhalation aerosol prescribed daily 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. This includes the case file from the plan, and any information submitted at the reconsideration level. The plan submitted documentation that shows the enrollee was in the initial coverage stage of the Part D benefit when this drug was purchased. According to the plans Evidence of Coverage, the copay for a 30 day supply of a tier 4 drug at a network pharmacy is $90.00. The claim information shows the full price of the drug was less than the $90.00 copay amount. Therefore, 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 coverage for Dupixent 300 milligram per 2 milliliter solution pen-injector, 1 pen-injector (300 milligrams) every two weeks, to treat atopic dermatitis. The Part D plan denied the request for coverage because the following prior authorization requirement was not met: documentation of involvement of at least 10 percent body surface area (BSA) and/or documentation of a SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) index value of at least 25.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. During this review, we requested additional information from the prescriber. Specifically, we requested medical records and a prescriber statement to support that the enrollee has satisfied the plans prior authorization coverage criteria. We received additional documentation and included it in the review. The newly submitted documentation supports that the plans prior authorization requirements for the drug have been met, as the prescriber submitted a completed SCORAD form that indicates the enrollees SCORAD value is 56.9. The available documentation supports that the plans other coverage requirements have been met, as well. The documentation shows that the enrollee has chronic atopic dermatitis; the enrollee has tried and failed at least one of the required topical treatments; the enrollees age is greater than 6 years; and that the drug has been prescribed by, or in consultation with, a dermatologist. Therefore, coverage for the drug is supported.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Spiriva HandiHaler 18 microgram capsule to treat chronic obstructive lung 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. 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 Sirturo 100 milligram tablet to treat pulmonary mycobacterial avium complex infection. 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 Wegovy 0.25 milligram per 0.5 milliliter subcutaneous solution to treat 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 Methylphenidate Hydrochloride 10 milligram tablet to treat fatigue from 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.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 a tiering exception request for Emgality 120 milligram per milliliter pen-injector to treat vestibular migraines. 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.Emgality 120 milligram per milliliter pen-injector 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 Temazepam 15 milligram capsules, 30 capsules per 30 days, for the long/term treatment of insomnia. 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: Favorable

At issue is Cellcept 500 milligram tablets prophylaxis against kidney and pancreas transplant rejection. 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 prescriber submitted medical documentation and attests that the patient did not have a Medicare Part A approved/paid kidney and transplant on January 28, 2005. As such, Medicare Part D is required to pay for the cost of the immunosuppressive drug.The drug at issue is not on the plans formulary. The prescriber provided patient specific clinical rationale supported by documentation, indicating why the formulary alternatives, required by the plan, would likely not be as effective as the requested drug for this diagnosis, and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm. Specifically, the prescriber statement and/or medical records indicate the enrollee has tried and failed therapy with generic Mycophenolate Mofetil. Therefore, an exception to the plans formulary coverage criteria is medically necessary.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

At issue is Tacrolimus 1 milligram tablet prophylaxis against kidney and pancreas transplant rejection. 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 prescriber submitted medical documentation and attests that the patient did not have a Medicare Part A approved/paid kidney and transplant on January 28, 2005. As such, Medicare Part D is required to pay for the cost of the immunosuppressive drug.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 Sumatriptan Powder 100 percent. The Part D plan denied the request. We received the case to perform an independent and de novo review. To make our decision, we read your 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 also researched Medicare regulations and Medicare approved compendia. Bulk powders do not satisfy the definition of a Part D drug. Therefore, this is excluded from coverage under Part D. This decision does not address the medical necessity or appropriateness of the requested drug. It only establishes if payment can be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is a tiering exception request for Ozempic 0.25 milligram or 0.5 milligram dose pen injector to treat the enrollee's condition. The Part D plan auto-forward 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. Ozempic is a brand drug on Tier 3 of the plans formulary. There are no brand drugs of the same type on the lower tiers of the plans formulary to treat the same diagnosis. 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 Caplyta 42 milligram capsule to treat major depressive disorder, recurrent, unspecified. 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 coverage for Otezla 30 milligram tablet to treat plaque psoriasis. 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.It is noted that the prescriber statement/letter of medical necessity submitted at reconsideration lists the drug being requested as Humira. However, all of the documentation submitted by the prescriber/prescriber's office to the plan indicates that the drug requested was Otezla. Additionally, Otezla is the drug that was reviewed by the plan. As such, this review is only for the drug, Otezla. If the prescriber wishes to request coverage for Humira, the request will need to be submitted to the plan first for an initial prior authorization determination.The plan has prior authorization requirements for Otezla that must be met before coverage will be provided. The submitted documentation does not support that all of the plans requirements for coverage have been satisfied. Furthermore, the documentation does not support the medical necessity for an exception to the plans prior authorization requirements.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug, Otezla, is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is coverage for Budesonide 0.25 milligram per 2 milliliter inhalation (nebulizer) suspension being used as a nasal rinse to treat chronic maxillary sinusitis. 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. Therefore, the drug is being prescribed for a non-medically accepted indication.A physician reviewed the appeal and determined that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

At issue is Lidocaine 5 percent patch to treat nerve pain in an enrollee with spinal stenosis and other specified spondylopathies. 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. On March 8, 2023, the prescriber stated the diagnosis was precordial pain. On March 9, 2023, the prescriber changed the diagnosis to spinal stenosis and scoliosis, spondylopathy. At reconsideration, in a statement dated March 14, 2023, the prescriber stated the diagnosis was nerve pain. However, no documentation was provided by the prescriber to support this diagnosis. Relevant medical records were requested but not provided. We are not able to determine whether the requested drug(s) was prescribed for a medically accepted indication. Therefore, the 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 Cortrophin 80 units per milliliter gel injection to treat nephrotic syndrome with focal and segmental glomerular lesions. 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 Oxycontin 10 milligram tablet to treat 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. 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 a tiering exception request for Acyclovir 400 milligram tablet to treat herpesviral infection, unspecified. 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. Acyclovir 400 milligram tablet is a generic drug on Tier 2 of the plans formulary. There are no generic drugs of the same type on the lower tiers of the plans formulary to treat the same diagnosis. 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 a tiering exception request for Lidocaine 5 percent patch to treat the enrollee's 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. Lidocaine 5 percent patch 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 to treat the same diagnosis. 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 Nurtec 75 milligram oral disintegrating tablet (ODT) for preventive treatment of episodic migraines. 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 Butalbital/Aspirin/Caffeine 50/325/40 milligram capsule to treat migraine headache. 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.