Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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 Lyrica. 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 Lyrica. The drug is requested to treat the enrollee's condition. A request for prescriber statement wassent and not returned. The prescriber has not indicated why all alternatives required by the Plan wouldlikely not be as effective for the enrollee as the requested drug; and/or would likely cause adversereaction(s) or other harm to the enrollee. Therefore, an exception to the Plan's coverage criteria is notsupported. 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 Lyrica.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Oxycontin. 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 Oxycontin. The drug is requested to treat chronic pain due to recurrent metastatic breast cancer. Oxycontin is not on the Plan's formulary. The prescriber has not indicated why all 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. 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.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 Oxycontin 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 Oxycontin. 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 Lumigan 0.01% eye drops. 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 Lumigan 0.01% eye drops. The drug is requested to treat primary open angle glaucoma. Lumigan is a brand drug on tier 3 of the Plan's formulary. There are no available lower tier brand drugs of the same type 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 Lumigan 0.01% eye drops.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Eliquis. 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 Eliquis 5 mg. The drug is requested to treat the enrollee's condition. The drug is a brand drug on tier 3 of the Plan's formulary. There are no available lower tier brand drugs of the same type 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 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 Eliquis.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Buprenorphine patch. The Plan did not grant this request. We received thiscase to conduct an independent review.We asked a Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Plan was correct in denying the request forBuprenorphine patch, 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 Buprenorphine patch.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide reimbursement for Lotemax 0.05% Gel purchased January 31, 2020 and February 16, 2020. 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. The documentation submitted by the Plan included documentation which shows that they provided coverage for an 18 day supply of Lotemax on January 29, 2020 and again on February 20, 2020. The Plan indicates the next refill of medications will not be covered by the Plan until 75% of the previous fill has been used. Additionally, a refill to soon is allowed when the enrollee will be out of the country for 90 days. As a result, your purchase of Lotemax 0.05% Gel purchased January 31, 2020 and February 16, 2020 was a refill-too-soon. The Plan is not required to provide coverage or payment for drugs that are refilled-too-soon.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 pay for Lotemax 0.05% Gel purchased January 31, 2020 and February 16, 2020.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Vitamin D2, 2,000 units. The Plan did not grant this request. We received thiscase to conduct an independent review.Medicare Part D does not cover non-prescription drugs. We checked FDA approved sources for the drug'sclassification or determined from other available resources that the drug is a non-prescription or OTC drug.Therefore, Vitamin D2, 2,000 units is not eligible for Part D coverage, and the Plan is not required to coverit 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.It is noted that you have attempted to correct the dose being requested, however it does not appear the Plan receivedor reviewed a request for 50,000 units. You should contact the Plan with that dose if you would like it reviewed.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide additional reimbursement for Vancomycin 125 mg purchased February 25, 2020 at your 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 you pay the full cost of a prescription drug out-of-pocket or if you find you have paid more than you expected to pay under the Plan's coverage rules, you can ask the Plan to pay you back. When submitting a request for reimbursement, the Plan requires that you submit your receipt documenting the payment you have made along with your reimbursement request. Pursuant to guidelines issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicare Services (CMS), as of February 1, 2014, the Plan has enacted a policy in which an enrollee is responsible for the difference between the cash price paid and the Plan's contracted negotiated rate for a drug for any purchases made at an in-network pharmacy that are not submitted online electronically through the pharmacy.In this case, the Plan approved coverage for Vancomycin. The Plan calculated reimbursement by using their contracted negotiated rate as the total cost for the drug and subtracting the required copayment amount due to the claim not being run electronically at the time of purchase. Thus, the Plan charged the enrollee the difference between the cash price paid and the Plan's contracted negotiated rate for this drug. The Plan is permitted to calculate reimbursement this way for in-network pharmacy purchases not run online electronically per Medicare rules.The case record indicates that the Plan provided coverage and calculated reimbursement in accordance with Medicare law and rules. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide additional reimbursement for Vancomycin 125 mg purchased February 25, 2020 at your Pharmacy.Please note: whether the Plan should provide a one-time exception to their reimbursement rules given the circumstances of this case is a grievance. A grievance is any complaint or dispute, other than one that involves a coverage determination, expressing dissatisfaction with any aspect of the operations, activities, or behavior of a Part D plan. Grievance procedures are separate and distinct from appeal procedures.Each Part D Plan must provide meaningful procedures for timely hearing and resolving grievances between enrollees and the Part D Plan (or any other entity or individual through whom the Part D Plan provides covered benefits under any Part D Plan it offers). Since your complaint involves a grievance, the Part D Plan must review this part of your complaint under the Plan's grievance procedures. At this time, you should contact the Plan for information on how to proceed with having this part of your complaint reviewed under the Plan's grievance procedures.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Tadalafil. 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 Tadalafil 5 mg tablet.The drug is requested to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia. The prescriber has not indicated why all alternatives required by the Plan (Alfuzosin ER, Dutasteride, Finasteride, and Terazosin) 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 Tadalafil.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Cyclobenzaprine. 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 10 mg tablet.The drug is requested to treat chronic rib pain due to intercostal neuropathy, and chronic middle and low back pain due to spondylosis and multilevel degenerative disc disease, which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use. The prescriber clarified the diagnoses in the request for reconsideration dated 5/11/2020. Medical records were provided which support these diagnoses. 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 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. 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 Januvia. 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 Januvia. The drug is requested to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus. You were asked to address all formulary alternatives, including Tradjenta, to which the enrollee had a failure, contraindication or intolerance. In a statement dated 4/23/2020, you were asked to address Tradjenta, but only stated that the enrollee cannot take Metformin. In the request for reconsideration dated 5/8/2020, you checked off yes when asked if the patient has a history of failure, contraindication or intolerance to Tradjenta. You stated He cannot take Metformin for DM. Relevant medical records were requested but were not provided. You have not indicated why all 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. 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 Januvia.We are dismissing the request for Tradjenta. We received your letter asking for an appeal of the Plan's unfavorable determination for Tradjenta. Medicare rules do not allow us to review this case until you have completed the appeal process with the Plan. You may request a Reconsideration appeal with us after the Plan issues an unfavorable Redetermination. You may wish to submit this request to the Plan at this time.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Corlanor. 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 Corlanor 5 mg tablet. The drug is requested to treat inappropriate sinus tachycardia, 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 Corlanor 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 Corlanor. 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 Tacrolimus 5 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 Tacrolimus 5 mg. The drug is requested to treat dermatomyositis, 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 Tacrolimus 5 mg 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 Tacrolimus 5 mg. 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 Corlanor, 5 mg tablet. 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 Corlanor, 5 mg tablet.The drug is requested to treat postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome 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 Corlanor, 5 mg tablet 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 Corlanor, 5 mg tablet. 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.