Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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. The drug is requested to treat postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome and inappropriate sinus tachycardia, 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 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 Methscopolamine Bromide, 2.5 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 Methscopolamine Bromide, 2.5 mg tablet.The drug is requested to treat 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. 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 Methscopolamine Bromide, 2.5 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 Methscopolamine Bromide, 2.5 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.
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. The drug is requested to treat cervical radiculitis in an enrollee with cervicalgia, cervical degenerative disc disease and cervical myositis, which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use. Medical records from date of service 2/18/2020 which substantiate 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 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 Engerix B Vaccine. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.Medicare law specifically excludes coverage for any drug for which payment would be available under Parts A or B of Medicare for that individual. Medicare law states that Medicare Part B pays for the Hepatitis B vaccine for the prevention of illness for those individuals who are at high or intermediate risk of contracting Hepatitis B. In this case, documentation in the record indicates that the enrollee is at high or intermediate risk of contracting Hepatitis B. Thus, it appears Engerix B Vaccine would be eligible for coverage under Part B. Drugs which are eligible for Part B coverage are excluded from Part D coverage by Medicare law. Therefore, our decision is the Part D Plan is not required to cover Engerix B Vaccine. This decision does not concern the medical necessity or appropriateness of the requested drug. It only establishes if payment can be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

You asked the Plan to cover Tacrolimus 1 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 1 mg. The drug is requested for the prophylaxis of liver and renal transplant rejection. 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 the requested drug for treatment of the noted condition. Therefore, the requested drug is being prescribed for a medically accepted indication. The enrollee satisfies the Plan's coverage criteria. The enrollee was not entitled to Medicare at the time of the transplants. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that prior authorization criteria are met.Medicare law specifically excludes coverage for any drug under the Part D program for which payment would be available under Parts A or B of Medicare for that individual. Coverage is available under Medicare Part B for prescription drugs used in immunosuppressive therapy furnished to a beneficiary who has received an organ transplant, provided the beneficiary receiving the drug was enrolled in Medicare Part A at the time of the organ transplant. In this case, the transplant was performed July 1, 2018. The enrollee the entitled to Medicare until 2019. Therefore, it is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part B and we sent the request to our physician reviewer to review for coverage under Medicare Part D.For coverage under Part D, Medicare requires that the drug must be prescribed for a medically accepted indication. A medically accepted indication means a use that is approved by the FDA or a use that is supported by one or more citations in Medicare approved compendia. Our Physician Reviewer reviewed this file and determined that there are citations in the Medicare approved compendia that support the use of Tacrolimus for the diagnosed condition. As a result, Tacrolimus is being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. Medicare rules allow a Part D Plan to manage its formulary by requiring prior approval for certain drugs. Based on the available documentation, our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that prior approval criteria are met. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is required to cover Tacrolimus.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 cover Auryxia. 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 Auryxia 210 mg. The drug is requested to treat iron deficiency anemia in an enrollee with chronic kidney disease. Drugs prescribed to treat vitamin or mineral deficiency are excluded from coverage under Medicare Part D. Therefore the requested drug is excluded from coverageMedicare law excludes certain drugs from Part D coverage. Auryxia is one of those excluded drugs because it is a prescription vitamin and mineral product. The record submitted by the Plan does not indicate that they provide supplemental coverage for Auryxia. Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover Auryxia. 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: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Rasuvo. 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 Rasuvo 7.5 mg/0.15 mL injection solution.The drug is requested to treat pityriasis rubra pilaris, 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 Rasuvo 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 Rasuvo. 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 Repatha Sureclick 140 mg/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 a tiering exception for Repatha Sureclick 140 mg/mL.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 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 Repatha Sureclick 140 mg/mL.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

You asked the Plan to cover Entresto 49/51 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 Entresto 49/51 mg. The drug is requested to treat chronic heart failure, NYHA class IV in an enrollee with 25% ejection fraction. The enrollee satisfies the Plan's coverage criteria. Medical records were provided from date of service 2/24/2020 which support this diagnosis. Medical records were also provided which document that Losartan has been discontinued. In the request for reconsideration dated 2/28/2020, you also stated that Losartan has been stopped. 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 Entresto.Please note that if the Plan does not agree with our decision, they can ask us to open a case again. We only open a case again if we believe there was a mistake or if there is new information to review. The health plan has to show us the mistake and/or send us the new information. This does not happen often. If we decide to open the case again, we will notify you in writing that the case is being reviewed again and the outcome of the reopening.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

You asked the Plan to cover Edarbyclor 40-12.5 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 Edarbyclor 40-12.5mg. Edarbyclor 40-12.5mg is requested for treatment of hypertension. The Plan indicated in its denial letter that several angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor/diuretic combination drugs are on their formulary. You state that the enrollee's condition was well controlled on the requested drug. Upon the Plan's denial of the requested drug, the enrollee was trialed on Qunapril-HCTZ which resulted in poor control of blood pressure as well as cough which interfered with the enrollee's ability to work. You have 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 metA 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 Edarbyclor 40-12.5 mg tablet.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 reimbursement for Fenofibrate 50 mg purchased March 2, 2019, March 28, 2019, June 4, 2019, September 20, 2019 and December 7, 2019 from the Plan's mail order 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 required a $50 copayment amount for up to a 30 day supply and a $125 copayment amount for up to a 90 day supply of a Tier 3 drug purchased in 2019 from a mail order pharmacy. Fenofibrate 50 mg was on the Plan's 2019 formulary and was classified as a Tier 3 drug. A request for reimbursement was submitted to the Plan. In this case, the Plan provided documentation showing that each claim was covered by the Plan at the time of purchase. The record shows that Fenofibrate 50 mg purchased March 2, 2019, March 28, 2019, June 4, 2019, September 20, 2019 and December 7, 2019 from the Plan's mail order pharmacy was purchased for an amount that is 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 Fenofibrate 50 mg purchased March 2, 2019, March 28, 2019, June 4, 2019, September 20, 2019 and December 7, 2019.
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 provide a tiering exception for Pilocarpine HCL. 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 tiering exceptionrequest for Pilocarpine HCL. Our Physician Reviewer needed additional information from the prescriber tomake this determination. The prescriber was asked to address whether the lower cost-sharing tiered drug(s)offered by the Plan to treat the enrollee's condition would: (1) be less effective than the requested nonpreferreddrug; and/or (2) have adverse effects. The requested information was not received. Based on areview of the available documentation, our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that tiering exception criteriaare not met.Medicare rules require a Plan to grant an exception to its tiering structure whenever it determines that thehigher cost-sharing tiered drug for treatment of the enrollee's condition is medically necessary consistentwith the prescriber's statement. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that tiering exception criteria are notmet. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide a tiering exception for Pilocarpine HCL.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Methocarbamol. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case toconduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor Methocarbamol 500 mg tab. The drug is requested to treat the enrollee's condition. A request forprescriber statement was sent and not returned. The prescriber has not indicated why all alternativesrequired by the Plan would likely not be as effective for the enrollee as the requested drug; and/or wouldlikely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm to the enrollee. Therefore, an exception to the Plan'scoverage criteria is not supported. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that formulary exception criteria arenot 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 Methocarbamol.