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

You asked the Plan to cover Breo Ellipta. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the request for Breo Ellipta.Breo Ellipta is requested to treat an unknown diagnosis. You were asked to state the enrollee's diagnosis, because there was no prescriber statement of the enrollee's diagnosis in the case file. You were also asked to address medical necessity for the requested drug. A response from you was not received. Therefore, based on the current record, there is insufficient documentation that the requested medication is being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. In addition, an exceptions request (tiering exception) based on medical necessity cannot be considered because it cannot be confirmed that the drug meets the definition of a Medicare Part D drug.For coverage under Part D, Medicare requires that the drug must be prescribed for a medically accepted indication. A medically accepted indication means a use that is approved by the FDA or a use that is supported by one or more citations in Medicare approved compendia. Our Physician Reviewer reviewed this file and determined that there are no citations in the Medicare approved compendia that support the use of Breo Ellipta for the diagnosed condition. As a result, the drug is not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, it cannot be covered under the Medicare Part D benefit for this condition. An exceptions request based on medical necessity cannot be considered because this drug, as prescribed, does not meet the definition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, our decision is that the Plan is not required to provide coverage for Breo Ellipta. This decision does not concern the medical necessity of the requested drug. It only establishes if payment can be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Cimzia 2 x 200 mg/ml. The Plan did not grant this request. We received thiscase to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor Cimzia 200 mg/mL. The drug is requested to treat rheumatoid arthritis. You have not indicated why allalternatives required by the Plan would likely not be as effective for the enrollee as the requested drug;and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm to the enrollee. Therefore, an exception to thePlan's coverage criteria is not supported. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that formulary exceptioncriteria are not met.A Plan must grant an exception for a drug that is not on its formulary if it determines that the requesteddrug is medically necessary, consistent with the prescriber's statement. Based on a review of the availabledocumentation, our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that formulary exception criteria are not met.Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover Cimzia 2 x 200 mg/ml.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Zolpidem ER. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case toconduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor Zolpidem ER. The drug is requested to treat insomnia. You have not indicated why all alternativesrequired by the Plan would likely not be as effective for the enrollee as the requested drug; and/or wouldlikely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm to the enrollee. Therefore, an exception to the Plan'scoverage criteria is not supported. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that formulary exception criteria arenot met.A Plan must grant an exception for a drug that is not on its formulary if it determines that the requesteddrug is medically necessary, consistent with the prescriber's statement. Based on a review of the availabledocumentation, our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that formulary exception criteria are not met.Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover Zolpidem ER.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

You asked the Plan to cover Testosterone 1.62% gel pump. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the request for Testosterone 1.62% gel pump. The drug is requested to treat hypogonadotropic hypogonadism/pituitary-hypothalamic injury status post transphenoidal resection for pituitary macroadenoma in this patient with panhypopituitarism. The enrollee satisfies the Plan's coverage criteria. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that prior authorization criteria are met.Medicare rules allow a Part D Plan to manage its formulary by requiring prior approval for certain drugs. Based on the available documentation, our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that prior approval criteria are met. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is required to cover Testosterone 1.62% gel pump.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Otezla, 30 mg tablet. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this caseto conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor Otezla, 30 mg tablet.The drug is requested to treat psoriasis vulgaris. Medical records from date of service 5/12/2020 wereprovided which support this diagnosis. Otezla, 30 mg tablet is not on the Plan's formulary. The prescriberhas not indicated why all alternatives required by the Plan would likely not be as effective for the enrolleeas the requested drug; and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm to the enrollee.Therefore, an exception to the Plan's coverage criteria is not supported. Our Physician Reviewer's opinionis that formulary exception criteria are not metA Plan must grant an exception for a drug that is not on its formulary if it determines that the requesteddrug is medically necessary, consistent with the prescriber's statement. Based on a review of the availabledocumentation, our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that formulary exception criteria are not met.Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover Otezla, 30 mg tablet.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Xifaxan. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conductan independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor Xifaxan 550 mg tab. The drug is requested to treat small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, which is anoff-label (non-FDA approved) use. The prescriber sent a letter dated 7/9/2020 clarifying the diagnosis. TheMedicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, asprescribed, for treatment of the noted condition. Therefore, the requested drug is not being prescribed for amedically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, an exceptions request based onmedical necessity cannot be considered because the requested drug, as prescribed, does not meet thedefinition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for coverage underMedicare Part D for the noted condition.For coverage under Part D, Medicare requires that the drug must be prescribed for a medically acceptedindication. A medically accepted indication means a use that is approved by the FDA or a use that issupported by one or more citations in Medicare approved compendia.Our Physician Reviewer reviewed this file and determined that there are no citations in the Medicareapproved compendia that support the use of Xifaxan for the diagnosed condition. As a result, the drug isnot being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, it cannot becovered under the Medicare Part D benefit for this condition. An exceptions request based on medicalnecessity cannot be considered because this drug, as prescribed, does not meet the definition of a MedicarePart D drug. Therefore, our decision is that the Plan is not required to provide coverage for Xifaxan.This decision does not concern the medical necessity of the requested drug. It only establishes if paymentcan be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Mycophenolic Acid. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this caseto conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor Mycophenolic Acid.The drug is requested to treat Sjogren's syndrome, which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use. TheMedicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, asprescribed, for treatment of the noted condition. Therefore, the requested drug is not being prescribed for amedically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, an exceptions request based onmedical necessity cannot be considered because the requested drug, as prescribed, does not meet thedefinition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for coverage underMedicare Part D for the noted condition.For coverage under Part D, Medicare requires that the drug must be prescribed for a medically acceptedindication. A medically accepted indication means a use that is approved by the FDA or a use that issupported by one or more citations in Medicare approved compendia.Our Physician Reviewer reviewed this file and determined that there are no citations in the Medicareapproved compendia that support the use of Mycophenolic Acid for the diagnosed condition. As a result,the drug is not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, itcannot be covered under the Medicare Part D benefit for this condition. An exceptions request based onmedical necessity cannot be considered because this drug, as prescribed, does not meet the definition of aMedicare Part D drug. Therefore, our decision is that the Plan is not required to provide coverage forMycophenolic Acid.This decision does not concern the medical necessity of the requested drug. It only establishes if paymentcan be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

Medicare rules require a Part D Plan to issue a decision regarding coverage within the specified timeframe.If the Plan does not make a timely decision, this is considered a denial. The Plan forwarded this case to usas required by Medicare rules because it did not make a timely decision.You asked the Plan to provide reimbursement for Oxycontin ER 10 mg purchased February 28, 2020. ThePlan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.We asked a Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Plan was correct in denying the request forOxycontin ER 10 mg, which is not on the Plan's formulary. Our Physician Reviewer needed additionalinformation from the prescriber to make this determination. The prescriber was asked to address whetherthe drugs offered by the Plan would: (1) not be as effective as the requested non-formulary drug; and/or (2)have adverse effects. The requested information was not received. Based on a review of the availabledocumentation, our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that formulary exception criteria are not met.A Plan must grant an exception for a drug that is not on its formulary if it determines that the requesteddrug is medically necessary, consistent with the prescriber's statement. Based on a review of the availabledocumentation, our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that formulary exception criteria are not met.Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover or provide reimbursement for Oxycontin ER 10 mg purchasedFebruary 28, 2020.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Pennsaid 2% Solution. The Plan did not grant this request. We received thiscase to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor Pennsaid 2% Solution.The drug is requested to treat chronic pain, M54.5 Low back pain in an enrollee with unspecified arthritisand M32.9 Systemic lupus erythematosus, unspecified, which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use.Relevant medical records were requested but not provided. The Medicare-approved compendia do notcontain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for treatment of the notedcondition. Therefore, the requested drug is not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication asdefined by Medicare law. As such, an exceptions request based on medical necessity cannot be consideredbecause the requested drug, as prescribed, does not meet the definition of a Medicare Part D drug.Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D for the noted condition.For coverage under Part D, Medicare requires that the drug must be prescribed for a medically acceptedindication. A medically accepted indication means a use that is approved by the FDA or a use that issupported by one or more citations in Medicare approved compendia.Our Physician Reviewer reviewed this file and determined that there are no citations in the Medicareapproved compendia that support the use of Pennsaid 2% Solution for the diagnosed condition. As a result,the drug is not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, itcannot be covered under the Medicare Part D benefit for this condition. An exceptions request based onmedical necessity cannot be considered because this drug, as prescribed, does not meet the definition of aMedicare Part D drug. Therefore, our decision is that the Plan is not required to provide coverage forPennsaid 2% Solution.This decision does not concern the medical necessity of the requested drug. It only establishes if paymentcan be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Trelegy Ellipta. The Plan did not grant this request.We received this case to conduct an independent review.Medicare rules do not require the Part D plan to grant a tiering exception for a brand or biologic drug of thesame type if the lower tier(s) on the formulary only contain(s) generic alternative drugs. Trelegy Ellipta is aTier 3 brand drug. The lower cost-sharing tier(s) only contain(s) generic alternative drugs. Therefore, ourdecision is the Plan is not required to provide a tiering exception for Trelegy Ellipta.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Zolpidem Tartrate. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this caseto conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor Zolpidem Tartrate. The drug is requested to treat insomnia. The enrollee does not satisfy the Plan'scoverage criteria - the criteria require that the patient have a contraindication to two of the followingnon-high risk medication alternative drugs: Doxepin and Trazodone. The patient does have acontraindication to Doxepin as he has had a Uro Lift procedure in November 2019 and a tendency towardurinary retention is a contraindication for Doxepin. The enrollee has no recorded contraindication toTrazodone. You have not sufficiently addressed the Plan's coverage criteria and/or have not indicated whyall alternatives required by the Plan would likely not be as effective for the enrollee as the requested drug,and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm to the enrollee. Our Physician's opinion is thatneither prior authorization nor prior authorization exception criteria are met.Medicare rules allow a Part D Plan to manage its formulary by requiring prior approval for certain drugs. APlan must grant an exception to prior approval rules if it determines that the requested drug is medicallynecessary, consistent with the prescriber's statement. Based on the available documentation, our PhysicianReviewer's opinion is that an exception to prior approval criteria is not met. Therefore, the Plan is notrequired to cover Zolpidem Tartrate.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Albuterol nebulizer solution. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review. Medicare law specifically excludes coverage for any drug for which payment would be available under Part A or Part B of Medicare for that individual. Medicare Part B may pay for supplies necessary for the effective use of durable medical equipment, including drugs and biologicals which must be put directly into the equipment in order to achieve the therapeutic benefit of the durable medical equipment. Medicare Part B local policy states that a small volume nebulizer and related compressor are covered when medically necessary to administer Albuterol nebulizer solution for the management of obstructive pulmonary disease.In this case, the record shows that Albuterol nebulizer solution is administered through a nebulizer in the home for a diagnosis of ICD-10 J44.9 (Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, unspecified). There is no indication that it is not administered through a small volume nebulizer. It appears that this medication is eligible for coverage under Part B rather than Part D. Drugs which are eligible for coverage under Part B are excluded from Part D coverage by Medicare law. Therefore, it is our decision that the Part D Plan is not required to cover Albuterol nebulizer solution.This decision does not concern the medical necessity or appropriateness of the requested drug. It only establishes if payment can be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.You may wish to submit this request to the Medicare Part B carrier.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Xarelto. The Plan did not grant this request. Wereceived this case to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor a tiering exception for Xarelto 15 mg. The drug is requested to treat the enrollee's condition. The drug isa brand drug on Tier 3 of the Plan's formulary. There are no available lower tier brand drugs on the Plan'sformulary to treat the enrollee's condition. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for a tieringexception. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that tiering exception criteria are not met.Medicare rules permit a Plan to grant an exception to its tiering structure so long as there is a drug of thesame type (such as brand or biologic drugs when considering an exception for a brand or biologic drug) in alower cost-sharing tier approved for treating the same condition that the higher cost-sharing tiered drug isbeing used to treat. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that tiering exception criteria are not met becausethere are no lower cost-sharing tiered drugs of the same type for treating the enrollee's condition.Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide a tiering exception for Xarelto.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Lidocaine 5% Patch. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this caseto conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor Lidocaine 5% Patch.The drug is requested to treat pain related to sickle cell disease, which is an off-label (non-FDA approved)use. The Medicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requesteddrug, as prescribed, for treatment of the noted condition. Therefore, the requested drug is not beingprescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, an exceptions requestbased on medical necessity cannot be considered because the requested drug, as prescribed, does not meetthe definition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for coverage underMedicare Part D for the noted condition.For coverage under Part D, Medicare requires that the drug must be prescribed for a medically acceptedindication. A medically accepted indication means a use that is approved by the FDA or a use that issupported by one or more citations in Medicare approved compendia.Our Physician Reviewer reviewed this file and determined that there are no citations in the Medicareapproved compendia that support the use of Lidocaine 5% Patch for the diagnosed condition. As a result,the drug is not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, itcannot be covered under the Medicare Part D benefit for this condition. An exceptions request based onmedical necessity cannot be considered because this drug, as prescribed, does not meet the definition of aMedicare Part D drug. Therefore, our decision is that the Plan is not required to provide coverage forLidocaine 5% Patch.This decision does not concern the medical necessity of the requested drug. It only establishes if paymentcan be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

Medicare rules require a Part D Plan to issue a decision regarding coverage within the specified timeframe.If the Plan does not make a timely decision, this is considered a denial. The Plan forwarded this case to usas required by Medicare rules because it did not make a timely decision.You asked the Plan to cover the Lidocaine-Rulox-Wal-Dryl Compound. The Plan did not grant this request.We received this case to conduct an independent review.Rulox and Wal-Dryl ingredientsMedicare Part D does not cover non-prescription drugs. We checked FDA approved sources for the drugs'classification or determined from other available resources that the drugs are non-prescription or OTCdrugs. Therefore, the Rulox and Wal-Dryl ingredients the Lidocaine-Rulox-Wal-Dryl Compound is noteligible for Part D coverage, and the Plan is not required to cover it under the Part D benefit.This decision does not address the medical necessity or appropriateness of the requested drug. It onlyestablishes that payment cannot be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Belbuca. The Plan did not grant this request. Wereceived this case to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor a tiering exception for Belbuca. The drug is requested to treat the enrollee's condition. The drug is abrand drug on Tier 3 of the Plan's formulary. There are no available lower tier brand drugs of the same typeon the Plan's formulary to treat the enrollee's condition. Therefore, the drug is not eligible for a tieringexception. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that tiering exception criteria are not met.Medicare rules permit a Plan to grant an exception to its tiering structure so long as there is a drug of thesame type (such as brand or biologic drugs when considering an exception for a brand or biologic drug) in alower cost-sharing tier approved for treating the same condition that the higher cost-sharing tiered drug isbeing used to treat. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that tiering exception criteria are not met becausethere are no lower cost-sharing tiered drugs of the same type for treating the enrollee's condition.Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide a tiering exception for Belbuca.