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

You asked the Plan to cover Premarin Nasal Drops Compound. 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 Premarin Nasal Drops Compound (Premarin 25mg vial is an ingredient w/ Sodium Chloride 0.9% vial and water vial in the compounded drug). The drug is requested for patulous eustachian tube treatment, which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use. The Medicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of this compounded drug, as prescribed, for treatment of the noted condition. The component (Premarin) and the compounded product as a whole, do not satisfy the definition of a Part D drug. 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 Premarin Nasal Drops Compound 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 Premarin Nasal Drops Compound. 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 Xeljanz. 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 Xeljanz 5 mg. The drug is requested to treat undifferentiated connective tissue disease/mixed connective tissue 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. Upon reconsideration, the prescribing physician submitted an additional statement and chart notes. The prescriber states that seronegative rheumatoid arthritis is a component of the enrollee's connective tissue disease; however, chart notes do not support a diagnosis of seronegative rheumatoid arthritis. 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 Xeljanz 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 Xeljanz. 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 Sildenafil Citrate 20 mg. The Plan did not grant this request. We received thiscase to conduct an independent review.Medicare law excludes certain drugs from Part D coverage. Sildenafil Citrate 20 mg is one of thoseexcluded drugs because it is a drug used to treat sexual or erectile dysfunction. The record submitted by thePlan does not indicate that they provide supplemental coverage for Sildenafil Citrate 20 mg. Therefore, thePlan is not required to cover Sildenafil Citrate 20 mg.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 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 500 mg. The drug is requested to treat anti Purkinje cell cytoplasmic antibody syndrome/anti-Yo paraneoplastic syndrome with cerebellar degeneration, 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 cover Dexcom G6. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.Medicare Part D does not cover devices. Dexcom G6 has been classified by the FDA as a device, not as a drug. Therefore, our decision is the Part D Plan is not required to cover Dexcom G6. This decision does not address the medical necessity or appropriateness of the requested item. It only establishes that payment cannot 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 Ondansetron ODT. 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 Ondansetron ODT. The drug is requested to treat nausea from chronic pain and opioid use, which is anoff-label (non-FDA approved) use. The Medicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations tosupport the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for treatment of the noted condition. Therefore, therequested drug is not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. Assuch, an exceptions request based on medical necessity cannot be considered because the requested drug, asprescribed, does not meet the definition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, the requested drug is noteligible 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 Ondansetron ODT for the diagnosed condition. As a result, thedrug 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 forOndansetron ODT.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 Armodafinil, 50 mg tablet. The Plan did not grant this request. We receivedthis case to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor Armodafinil, 50 mg tablet.The drug is requested to treat vascular dementia with behavioral disturbance, which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use. The Medicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use ofthe requested drug, as prescribed, for treatment of the noted condition. Therefore, the requested drug is notbeing prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, an exceptionsrequest based on medical necessity cannot be considered because the requested drug, as prescribed, doesnot meet the definition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for coverageunder 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 Armodafinil, 50 mg tablet for the diagnosed condition. As aresult, the drug is not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. Assuch, it cannot be covered under the Medicare Part D benefit for this condition. An exceptions requestbased on medical necessity cannot be considered because this drug, as prescribed, does not meet thedefinition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, our decision is that the Plan is not required to providecoverage for Armodafinil, 50 mg tablet.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 us as required by Medicare rules because it did not make a timely decision.You asked the Plan to provide reimbursement for Metoprolol Succinate ER, Prasugrel, and Tamsulosin purchased on March 3, 2020, from the pharmacy. 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. If an enrollee pays the full cost of a prescription, the enrollee may submit a request for reimbursement with proof of payment to ask the Plan to pay its share of the cost. The Plan requires a $20 copayment amount for up to a 30-day supply of a Tier 2 drug and a $47 copayment amount for up to a 30-day supply of a Tier 3 drug purchased from a standard retail pharmacy in 2020. Metoprolol Succinate ER and Tamsulosin are on the Plan's 2020 formulary and are classified as Tier 2 drugs. Prasugrel is on the Plan's 2020 formulary and is classified as a Tier 3 drug. A request for reimbursement was submitted to the Plan. In this case, the case record includes documentation showing that these claims were covered by the Plan at the time of purchase. The record shows that Metoprolol Succinate ER, Prasugrel, and Tamsulosin were purchased for amounts that are less than or equal to the required copayment amount. The case record indicates that the Plan provided coverage in accordance with the Part D contract. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide reimbursement for Metoprolol Succinate ER, Prasugrel, and Tamsulosin purchased on March 3, 2020, from the pharmacy.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Epidiolex. 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 Epidiolex. The drug is requested to treat intractable generalized idiopathic epilepsy without status epilepticus, 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 Epidiolex 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 Epidiolex. 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 Quinine Sulfate. 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 Quinine Sulfate. The drug is requested to treat restless legs syndrome and lupus, which are off-label (non-FDA approved) uses. The Medicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for treatment of the noted conditions. 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 conditions.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 Quinine Sulfate for the diagnosed conditions. 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 these conditions. 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 Quinine Sulfate. 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 Taltz. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.A written request for Reconsideration must be filed within 60 days from the date of the Plan's Redetermination Letter. This request was not filed within the required 60-day time limit. However, the case record reflects there is good cause for the late filing. Therefore the Reconsideration request is being processed.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the request for Taltz 80 mg/mL.The drug is requested to treat plaque psoriasis. The prescriber has not indicated why all alternatives required by the Plan (Cosentyx, Enbrel, and 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 Taltz.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide additional reimbursement for Oxycodone 30 mg, purchased on February 12, 2020, from the pharmacy. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.Medicare rules state that an individual that meets requirements under Medicare's low income subsidy (LIS) rules is entitled to a reduction or elimination in the premium, a reduction or elimination in the annual deductible, a reduction in cost-sharing for all covered Part D drugs below the out-of-pocket limit, and a reduction or elimination in cost-sharing for covered Part D drugs above the out-of-pocket limit. The extent of reduction in these benefits depends on an individual's income and resources. According to enrollment records from CMS, you were determined to be entitled to an LIS, copay level 3, effective January 1, 2020. For copay level 3, an enrollee is not required to pay a deductible or copayment for the drugs they purchase under their Part D benefit. In this case, you purchased Oxycodone from the pharmacy on February 12, 2020. The Plan provided reimbursement for this fill but stated that you were responsible for the difference between the cash price paid and the Plan's negotiated contract rate for the drug because the pharmacy did not automatically submit your claims online to be processed by the Plan. The Plan stated that the pharmacy is a network pharmacy. The record indicates that you purchased Oxycodone at a quantity of 90 pills and paid out-of-pocket because the Plan's coverage only permitted an initial fill of a 7-day supply. The policy for an enrollee to be responsible for the difference between the cash price paid and the Plan's contracted negotiated rate for a drug for purchases made at in-network pharmacies that are not automatically run through the Plan's online claims processing system is limited to those situations in which online claims processing is available at the time of purchase but is not utilized. Since you have not explained why a 7-day supply was not sufficient, it appears that this is a situation in which the Plan's policy of charging the enrollee the difference between the cash price paid and the Plan's contracted negotiated rate for the drug is applicable. The case record indicates that the Plan provided coverage in accordance with the Part D Plan contract and with the LIS benefit to which you were entitled. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide additional reimbursement for Oxycodone purchased on February 12, 2020, from the pharmacy.