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

You asked the Plan to cover Wixela 250/50 inhub as prescribed. 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 Wixela 250/50 inhub.Wixela 250/50 inhub is requested for ongoing treatment of moderate persistent asthma. The Plan's denial letter dated February 28, 2020 indicates that Symbicort HFA aerosol inhaler is on their formulary. The prescriber's letter of appeal dated March 3, 2020 states that the enrollee has tried many alternatives including Symbicort, and that she is stable on the requested drug which has given her the most relief from her asthma. The prescriber has addressed the Plan's alternative noted in their denial letter. 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 Wixela 250/50 inhub as prescribed.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: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Desipramine 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 a tiering exception for Desipramine HCL. The drug is requested to treat the enrollee's condition. The drug is a generic drug on tier 3 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 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 Desipramine HCL.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Vimpat. 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 Vimpat 150mg. Vimpat 150mg is requested to treat the enrollee's condition. The requested drug is a brand drug on Tier 4 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 requested drug is not eligible for a tiering exception. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that tiering exception criteria are not met. Of note, branded generic drugs are generic drugs for purposes of eligibility for a tiering exception.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 Vimpat.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Invokana. 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 Invokana. The drug is requested to treat type 2 diabetes. The prescriber has not indicated why all alternatives required by the Plan (Farxiga) 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 Invokana.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Lidocaine 5% Patch. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this 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 Lidocaine 5% Patch. The drug is requested to treat unspecified abdominal pain and other chronic 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 Lidocaine 5% Patch for the diagnosed condition. As a result, the drug is not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, 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 Lidocaine 5% Patch. 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 Viberzi 100 mg. 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. Viberzi is a Tier 3 brand drug. The lower cost-sharing tier(s) only contain(s) generic alternative drugs. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide a tiering exception for Viberzi.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Myrbetriq ER. 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 Myrbetriq ER. 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 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 Myrbetriq ER.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Xifaxan. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the request for Xifaxan 550 mg.The drug is requested for continuous chronic treatment of irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea, 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. Additional medical information was requested by the Part D QIC. The prescribing physician was asked to address the Plan's prior authorization criteria. The prescribing physician states that the enrollee has been taking the requested medication since 2016 and that Xifaxan will be used for continuous chronic treatment of irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea. 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 Xifaxan 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 Xifaxan. 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 Diclofenac Epolamine 1.3% patch. 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 Diclofenac Epolamine 1.3% patch. The drug is requested to treat chronic lower back and right hip arthritis 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 Diclofenac Epolamine 1.3% patch for the diagnosed condition. As a result, the drug is not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, 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 Diclofenac Epolamine 1.3% patch. 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 Aprepitant. 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 Aprepitant 80 mg. The drug is requested to treat chronic undifferentiated nausea and vomiting related to ulcerative colitis with ostomy, 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 Aprepitant 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 Aprepitant. 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 Prolia 60 mg/ml sol. 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 Prolia 60 mg/ml.Prolia 60 mg/ml is prescribed for ongoing use in this 81 year old with osteopenia - bone mineral density most recently was -1.9 in the hip. The plan's notes indicate that per the prescriber's fax, the enrollee has tried Alendronate and Actonel. It is not stated that the enrollee has had a fracture; however even without a history of fracture, based on the information available, the calculated FRAX score - ten year probability of a fracture in the hip is greater than 3%. The prescriber states that the enrollee has failed other medications, and has been on the requested drug for one year with great response.The enrollee does not satisfy the Plan's coverage criteria. 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 PhysicianReviewer's opinion is that an exception to prior approval criteria is met. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is required to cover Prolia.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Meprobamate. 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 Meprobamate, 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 Meprobamate.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Advair Diskus. 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. Advair Diskus is a Tier 3 brand drug. The lower cost-sharing tier(s) only contain(s) generic alternative drugs. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide a tiering exception for Advair Diskus.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Advair Diskus. 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 Advair Diskus 100-50 mcg.The drug is requested to treat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The prescriber has not indicated why all alternatives required by the Plan (Advair HFA, Breo Ellipta, Fluticasone/Salmeterol, or Symbicort) 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 Advair Diskus.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover First Baclofen suspension. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.Medicare Part D does not cover drugs that are not FDA approved for both safety and effectiveness. We determined that First Baclofen suspension is not FDA approved for both safety and effectiveness by checking FDA sources. Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover First Baclofen suspension. This decision does not address the medical necessity or appropriateness of the requested drug. It only establishes that payment cannot be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

You asked the Plan to cover Lidocaine 5% Patch as prescribed. The Plan did not grant this request. Wereceived this case to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor Lidocaine 5% Patch.The drug is requested to treat low back pain. For coverage under the prescription drug benefit, Medicarerequires that the drug prescribed be used for a medically accepted indication. Our Physician Reviewerfound that the Medicare-approved resources do contain citations to support the use of the requested drugfor treatment of the noted condition - Krebs EE, Gravely A, Nugent S, et al: Effect of opioid vs nonopioidmedications on pain-related function in patients with chronic back pain or hip or knee osteoarthritis pain:the SPACE randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2018; 319(9):872-882. Therefore, the requested drug is beingprescribed for a medically accepted indication.The enrollee satisfies the Plan's coverage criteria. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that priorauthorization criteria are met.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 reviewedthis file and determined that there are citations in the Medicare approved compendia that support the use ofLidocaine 5% Patch as prescribed for the diagnosed condition. As a result, Lidocaine 5% Patch asprescribed 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 aremet. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is required to cover Lidocaine 5% Patch as prescribed.