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

You asked the Plan to cover Ofev 150 mg. 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 Ofev 150 mg. The drug is requested to treat progressive pulmonary fibrosis/hypersensitivity pneumonitis. For coverage under the prescription drug benefit, Medicare requires that the drug prescribed be used for a medically accepted indication. On 03/13/2020 the prescriber sent additional information and medical records addressing the diagnosis and the Plans coverage criteria. Our Physician Reviewer found that the Medicare-approved resources do contain citations to support the use of the requested drug for treatment of the noted condition. Therefore, the requested drug is being prescribed for a medically accepted indication. The enrollee satisfies the Plan's coverage criteria. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that prior authorization criteria are met.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 citations in the Medicare approved compendia that support the use of Ofev for the diagnosed condition. As a result, Ofev is being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. 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 Ofev.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Cyclobenzaprine HCL. 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 Cyclobenzaprine HCL. The drug is requested to treat chronic muscle spasticity related to Parkinson's 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 requested drug, as prescribed, for treatment of the noted condition. Therefore, the requested drug is not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, an exceptions request based on medical necessity cannot be considered because 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 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 Cyclobenzaprine HCL 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 Cyclobenzaprine HCL. 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 Mycophenolate Mofetil. 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 Mycophenolate Mofetil. The drug is requested to treat placoid chorioretinitis/unspecified chorioretinal inflammation, bilateral, which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use. 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. Therefore, the requested drug is not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, an exceptions request based on medical necessity cannot be considered because 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 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 Mycophenolate Mofetil 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 Mycophenolate Mofetil. 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 provide a tiering exception for Bystolic. 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 a tiering exception for Bystolic. The drug is requested to treat hypertension. The drug is on tier four of the Plan's formulary. There are no available (equivalent, branded) lower tier drugs on the Plan's formulary to treat the enrollee's condition. Therefore, the drug is not eligible for a tiering exception. 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 the same type (such as brand or biologic drugs when considering an exception for a brand or biologic drug) in a lower cost-sharing tier approved for treating the same condition that the higher cost-sharing tiered drug is being used to treat. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that tiering exception criteria are not met because there 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 Bystolic.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Otezla. 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 Otezla. The drug is requested to treat psoriasis. The prescriber has not indicated (with patient specific rationale) why all alternatives required by the Plan (including Skyrizi) 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 the Plan's coverage criteria is not supported. 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 requested drug is medically necessary, consistent with the prescriber's statement. Based on a review of the available documentation, our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that formulary exception criteria are not met. Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover Otezla.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Vascepa. 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 a tiering exception for Vascepa. The drug is requested to treat hypertriglyceridemia. The drug is a brand drug on tier 4 of the Plan's formulary. There are no available lower tier drugs on the Plan's formulary to treat the enrollee's condition. Therefore, the drug is not eligible for a tiering exception. 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 the same type (such as brand or biologic drugs when considering an exception for a brand or biologic drug) in a lower cost-sharing tier approved for treating the same condition that the higher cost-sharing tiered drug is being used to treat. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that tiering exception criteria are not met because there 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 Vascepa.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

You asked the Plan to cover Pomalyst 4 mg. 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 Pomalyst 4 mg. Pomalyst 4 mg is requested as part of a regimen to treat progressive multiple myeloma. The Plan denied the request as the enrollee had not been treated with a proteasome inhibitor. Upon reconsideration request the prescriber indicated a concern regarding a worsening of peripheral neuropathy. The enrollee does not satisfy the Plan's coverage criteria. However, the prescriber has indicated why all alternatives required by the Plan would likely not be as effective as the requested drug for the enrollee, and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm to the enrollee. Therefore, an exception to the Plan's coverage criteria is medically necessary. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that prior authorization exception criteria are met.Medicare rules allow a Part D Plan to manage its formulary by requiring prior approval for certain drugs. A Plan must grant an exception to prior approval rules if it determines that the requested drug is medically necessary, consistent with the prescriber's statement. Based on the available documentation, our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that an exception to prior approval criteria is met. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is required to cover Pomalyst.Please note that if the Plan does not agree with our decision, they can ask us to open a case again. We only open a case again if we believe there was a mistake or if there is new information to review. The health plan has to show us the mistake and/or send us the new information. This does not happen often. If we decide to open the case again, we will notify you in writing that the case is being reviewed again and the outcome of the reopening.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

You asked the Plan to cover Dupixent 300 mg/2 mL. 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 Dupixent 300 mg/2 mL. The drug is requested to treat atopic/spongiotic dermatitis. On 03/13/2020 the prescriber sent additional information and medical records addressing the formulary alternatives. The prescriber has indicated why all alternatives required by the Plan would likely not be as effective as the requested drug for the enrollee, and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm to the enrollee. Therefore, an exception to the Plan's coverage criteria is medically necessary. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that formulary exception criteria are met.A Plan must grant an exception for a drug that is not on its formulary if it determines that the requested drug is medically necessary, consistent with the prescriber's statement. Based on a review of the available documentation, our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that formulary exception criteria are met. Therefore, the Plan is required to cover Dupixent.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide reimbursement for the Shingrix vaccine received December 21, 2019. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.Medicare rules allow a Part D Plan to apply coinsurance and copayments to covered drugs. In this case, documentation in the record shows that the enrollee was in the deductible stage when the Shingrix vaccine was received on December 21, 2019. During the deductible stage, the Plan requires that the enrollee pay the full cost of Tier 3, Tier 4 and Tier 5 drugs purchased in 2019 before the Plan would pay a share of the cost. The Shingrix vaccine was on the Plan's 2019 formulary and was classified as a Tier 3 drug. The Plan provided documentation showing that this claim was covered by the Plan at the time of purchase, and that the full cost of the purchase in dispute was applied to the required deductible amount. The case record indicates that the Plan provided coverage in accordance with the Part D Plan contract. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide reimbursement for the Shingrix vaccine received December 21, 2019.Please note: the documentation provided to MAXIMUS Federal shows you also received the vaccine on February 19, 2020. The Plan has verified the request has been forwarded to the proper department for processing. You may wish to follow up with the Plan regarding what stage in the process the Plan is in for processing the claim for the February 19, 2020 date of service.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Solu-Cortef, Esomeprazole, Saline, Acetylcysteine, Ceftriaxone Sodium (Rocephin). Budesonide Nebules (Budesonide), Ketorolac (Toradol), Paracetamol, Ipratropium (Atrovent), Sodium Chloride, Ranitidine (Zantac), Methylprednisolone (Medrol), Cefdinir (Omnicef), Beclomethasone (Qvar) received 9/23/2019 and 9/24/2019 while on a cruise ship. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.Solu-Cortef, Esomeprazole, Saline, Acetylcysteine, Ceftriaxone Sodium (Rocephin). Budesonide Nebules (Budesonide), Ketorolac (Toradol), Paracetamol, Ipratropium (Atrovent), Sodium Chloride, Ranitidine (Zantac), Methylprednisolone (Medrol), Cefdinir (Omnicef), Beclomethasone (Qvar) are not covered by Medicare because they were purchased outside the United States. Therefore, our decision is that the Part D Plan is not required to pay for Solu-Cortef, Esomeprazole, Saline, Acetylcysteine, Ceftriaxone Sodium (Rocephin). Budesonide Nebules (Budesonide), Ketorolac (Toradol), Paracetamol, Ipratropium (Atrovent), Sodium Chloride, Ranitidine (Zantac), Methylprednisolone (Medrol), Cefdinir (Omnicef), Beclomethasone (Qvar) received 9/23/2019 and 9/24/2019 while on a cruise ship. This decision does not concern the medical 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

You asked the Plan to cover Rituxan. 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 Rituxan. The drug is requested to treat autoimmune epilepsy, which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use. 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. Therefore, the requested drug is not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, an exceptions request based on medical necessity cannot be considered because 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 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 Rituxan 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 Rituxan. 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

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 us as required by Medicare rules because it did not make a timely decision.You asked the Plan to provide reimbursement for Hepatitis A/Hepatitis B vaccine received November 18, 2019. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.The Part D Plan covers certain vaccines purchased and/or administered out-of-network. If an enrollee receives a vaccine from an out-of-network provider, the enrollee will generally have to pay the full cost for the vaccine. The enrollee may then submit a request for reimbursement with proof of payment to ask the Plan to pay its share of the cost.In this case, the record shows that you were administered Hepatitis A/Hepatitis B vaccine received November 18, 2019. You submitted a request for reimbursement however, the record does not include proof of payment in full for the vaccine. Additionally, a representative from MAXIMUS Federal verified with the provider's office that the vaccine has not yet been paid for as of March 12, 2020. The Plan's criteria for out-of-network coverage and reimbursement have not been met. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to cover or provide reimbursement for Hepatitis A/Hepatitis B vaccine received November 18, 2019 at this time.Please note: once you have paid for the vaccine and its administration fee, you may wish to obtain a statement showing a zero balance and submit that to the Plan as proof of payment. Until proof of payment is established, the Plan will not process the claims or provide reimbursement.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Prolastin C. 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 Parts A or B of Medicare for that individual. Medicare Part B pays for services and supplies incident to the service of a physician (or other practitioner). We requested additional medical information to determine if criteria for Medicare Part D have been met. We requested confirmation of how and where this drug is supplied and billed. A response to our request was not received in the timeframe required for review of this case. Prolastin C is a type of drug that is not usually self-administered. There is insufficient information to show that this drug is not eligible for Medicare Part B coverage. As a result, the record does not establish that Prolastin C is a Part D drug in this case. Therefore, it is our decision that the Part D Plan is not required to cover Prolastin C. 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 cover Otezla 10-20-30 mg starter and 30 mg maintenance dose. 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 Otezla 10-20-30 mg starter kit and 30 mg maintenance dose. The drug is requested to treat psoriasis. The prescriber has not indicated why all alternatives required by the Plan (Cosentyx subcutaneous syringe, Enbrel subcutaneous syringe, Humira subcutaneous syringe kit, and Skyrizi subcutaneous syringe), 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 the Plan's coverage criteria is not supported. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that formulary exception criteria are not met.Medicare rules require a Part D Plan to issue a coverage decision or a redetermination decision within the specified timeframes. If the Plan does not make a timely decision, this is considered a denial. In these circumstances, the Plan is required to forward the coverage request or the redetermination request to the Part D QIC. The case record indicates multiple requests were submitted to the Plan. The Plan did not properly process these requests to move the case forward to the next appeal level. Therefore, the applicable time frames have been exceeded, and the Part D QIC has jurisdiction to process this case.A Plan must grant an exception for a drug that is not on its formulary if it determines that the requested drug is medically necessary, consistent with the prescriber's statement. Based on a review of the available documentation, our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that formulary exception criteria are not met. Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover Otezla.