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

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Suboxone film. 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 the same type (such as brand or biologic drugs when considering an exception for a brand or biologic drug) if the lower tier(s) on the formulary only contain(s) generic alternative drugs. Suboxone film is a Tier 3 brand drug. The lower cost-sharing tiers only contain generic alternative drugs. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide a tiering exception for Suboxone film.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Estradiol 10 mcg. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.Medicare law and Plan rules do not allow tiering exceptions for non-formulary drugs being covered through a formulary exception. The documentation in the record shows that Estradiol is currently being covered for the enrollee through a formulary exception. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide a tiering exception for Estradiol.We are dismissing your request for Yuvafem and Vagifem. We received your letter asking for an appeal of the Plan's unfavorable determination for Yuvafem and Vagifem. 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 Oxcarbazepine. 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 Oxcarbazepine. The drug is requested to treat lumbar spondylosis with radiculopathy/nerve pain, 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 Oxcarbazepine 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 Oxcarbazepine. 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: 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 primary hypogonadism due to testicular hypofunction from chronic opioid use. Additional medical information was requested by the Part D QIC. You were asked to address the Plan's prior authorization criteria. You state that the enrollee does not have age related late onset hypogonadism, and that the enrollee was diagnosed with hypogonadism at age 57. You state that the enrollee has primary hypogonadism related to chronic opioid use. The enrollee had a normal testosterone level of 711 ng/dL (normal for lab 264-916 ng/dL) on November 2, 2019. 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 provide a tiering exception for Brilinta. 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 Brilinta. The drug is requested to treat coronary artery disease with stent. The drug is on Tier 3 of the Plan's formulary. There are no available lower tier brand 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 Brilinta.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Ropinirole 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 Ropinirole HCL. The drug is requested to treat M54.17 - Radiculopathy, lumbosacral region and G62.9 - Polyneuropathy, unspecified, which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use. Medical records were provided to 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 Ropinirole 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 Ropinirole 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 Azathioprine. 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 Azathioprine. The drug is requested to treat psoriatic arthritis, 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 Azathioprine 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 Azathioprine. 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 Modafinil. The Plan 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 for Modafinil, which is not on the Plan's formulary. Our Physician Reviewer needed additional information from the prescriber to make this determination. The prescriber was asked to address whether the 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 available documentation, 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 Modafinil.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Cymbalta DR. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.Medicare law and Plan rules do not allow tiering exceptions for non-formulary drugs being covered through a formulary exception. The documentation in the record shows that Cymbalta DR is currently being covered for the enrollee through a formulary exception. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide a tiering exception for Cymbalta DR.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

You asked the Plan to cover Tacrolimus 0.5 mg. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.The case record indicates that Tacrolimus is needed for a kidney transplant performed June 1, 1995. In this case, we sent a request for additional information to the Part D Plan. We requested the evidence that the Plan used to determine that Medicare paid for the transplant performed June 1, 1995. The Plan responded to our request, however the Plan failed to provide claims data that supports that Medicare paid for the transplant in question. Based on the available information we cannot verify that coverage would be available for the requested drug under Medicare Part B. Therefore we asked our Physician Reviewer to determine if other Medicare Part D coverage criteria are met.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the request for Tacrolimus. The drug is requested to treat kidney transplant status (transplant 6/1/1995). 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 Tacrolimus.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Ozempic 1 mg/0.75 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 Ozempic 1 mg/0.75 mL.The drug is requested to treat pre-diabetes, 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 Ozempic 1 mg/0.75 mL 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 Ozempic 1 mg/0.75 mL. 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 Gleevec. 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 Gleevec 400 mg. The drug is requested to treat chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML). The enrollee is a 72-year-old man with CML that is BCR/ABL positive. He has been taking Gleevec since 2013 and is in remission. You request brand name Gleevec. The Plan has approved the generic equivalent, Imatinib mesylate. You state the enrollee cannot afford generic Imatinib. He has been obtaining the brand name drug from Novartis and can only get brand name drug. Per the FDA website, Gleevec is indicated for newly diagnosed adult and pediatric patients with Philadelphia chromosome positive chronic myeloid leukemia (Ph+ CML) in chronic phase. For coverage under the prescription drug benefit, Medicare requires that the drug prescribed be used for a medically accepted indication. Our Physician Reviewer found that the Medicare-approved resources do contain citations to support the use of this drug for this condition. Therefore, this drug is being prescribed for a medically accepted indication. The prescriber does not state why the alternatives required by the Plan (1) would not be as effective for the enrollee as the requested drug; and/or (2) would have adverse effects for the enrollee. 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 Gleevec.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Trintellix. 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 Trintellix. The drug is requested to treat depression. Trintellix is a brand drug on tier 4 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 Trintellix.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Triazolam. 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 Triazolam.The drug is requested to treat insomnia. 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.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 Triazolam.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Pregabalin. 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 Pregabalin 75 mg capsule.The drug is requested to treat unspecified polyneuropathy/sciatic pain/multiple sclerosis, 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 Pregabalin 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 Pregabalin. 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 Febuxostat. 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 Febuxostat. The drug is requested to treat E79.2 Myoadenylate deaminase deficiency, hyperuricemia, and gout. On 2/15/2020, the prescriber sent a statement, attesting that the diagnosis being treated with the drug was E79.2 Myoadenylate deaminase deficiency. In a statement dated 2/26/2020, the prescriber changed the diagnosis to E79.0 Hyperuricemia without signs of inflammatory arthritis and tophaceous disease and M10.9 Gout, unspecified. The prescriber was asked to clarify the enrollee's diagnosis, because it was unclear from the case file what diagnoses were being treated with the requested drug. The prescriber was also asked to address all formulary alternatives. Supporting medical records were also requested. A response from the prescriber 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, 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 Febuxostat.