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 time frame. If the Plan does not make a timely decision, this is considered a denial. The Plan forwarded this case to us as required by Medicare rules because it did not make a timely decision.You asked the Plan to cover Norco, 10-325 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 Norco, 10-325 mg tablet.The drug is requested to treat pain associated with radiculopathy and disc degeneration. Norco, 10-325 mg tablet 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.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 Norco, 10-325 mg tablet.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

Medicare rules require a Part D Plan to issue a decision regarding coverage within the specified timeframe. If the Plan does not make a timely decision, this is considered a denial. The Plan forwarded this case to us as required by Medicare rules because it did not make a timely decision.You asked the Plan to cover Cyclobenzaprine 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 Cyclobenzaprine HCL.Cyclobenzaprine HCL is requested for treatment of bicipital tendinitis, left shoulder, in this enrollee who is also noted to have osteoarthritis, 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 Cyclobenzaprine 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 Cyclobenzaprine 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 Ondansetron ODT. 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 Ondansetron ODT. The drug is requested to treat nausea/vomiting due to immunoglobulin infusions, 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 Ondansetron ODT 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 Ondansetron ODT. 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 Ingrezza. 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 Ingrezza. The drug is requested to treat tardive dyskinesia. 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 Ingrezza.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Diazepam. 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 Diazepam. The drug is requested to treat an enrollee with a left knee injury, unspecified left lower leg injury, and right shoulder injury, 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 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 Diazepam 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 Diazepam. 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 Atacand. 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 Atacand 5 mg tablet.The drug is requested to treat hypertension. The prescriber has not indicated why all alternatives requiredby the Plan (Candesartan, Cilexetil, Eprosartan Mesylate, Irbesartan, Losartan Potassium, Telmisartan,Valsartan, Entresto, Olmesartan Medoxomil, Tekturna, Aliskiren) would likely not be as effective for theenrollee 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 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 Atacand.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

You asked the Plan to cover Buprenorphine 10 mcg/hr Patch 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 Buprenorphine 10 mcg/hr Patch.Buprenorphine 10 mcg/hr Patch is requested for ongoing use in this 83 year old man who the prescriber states is at high risk for falls, confusion and other side effects of chronic opioids. The prescriber states that the enrollee is being weaned off of Oxycodone IR. The Plan's alternatives include Xtampza ER capsule/sprinkles, Fentanyl transdermal patch, Morphine ER extended release, and Belbucca. The prescriber has provided a sufficient statement indicating 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 Buprenorphine 10 mcg/hr Patch 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 cover Testosterone 50 mg/5 gm packet. 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 50 mg/5 gm packet. The drug is requested to treat male hypogonadism. The enrollee does not satisfy the Plan's coverage criteria. The prescriber has not sufficiently addressed the Plan's coverage criteria and/or 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. Our Physician's opinion is that neither prior authorization nor 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 Physician Reviewer's opinion is that an exception to prior approval criteria is not met. Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover Testosterone 50 mg/5 gm packet.
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 conductan independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor Xifaxan. The drug is requested to treat R19.7, Diarrhea, unspecified, which is an off-label (non-FDAapproved) use. The Medicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of therequested drug, as prescribed, for treatment of the noted condition. Therefore, the requested drug is notbeing prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, an exceptionsrequest based on medical necessity cannot be considered because the requested drug, as prescribed, doesnot meet the definition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for coverageunder Medicare Part D for the noted condition.For coverage under Part D, Medicare requires that the drug must be prescribed for a medically acceptedindication. A medically accepted indication means a use that is approved by the FDA or a use that issupported by one or more citations in Medicare approved compendia.Our Physician Reviewer reviewed this file and determined that there are no citations in the Medicareapproved compendia that support the use of Xifaxan for the diagnosed condition. As a result, the drug isnot being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, it cannot becovered under the Medicare Part D benefit for this condition. An exceptions request based on medicalnecessity cannot be considered because this drug, as prescribed, does not meet the definition of a MedicarePart 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 paymentcan be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Ursodiol. 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 a tiering exception for Ursodiol 300mg. The drug is requested to treat calculus of bile duct. The drug ison tier three of the Plan's formulary. There are no available lower tier drugs on the Plan's formulary to treatthe enrollee's condition. Therefore, the drug is not eligible for a tiering exception. Our Physician Reviewer'sopinion 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 thesame type in a lower cost-sharing tier approved for treating the same condition that the higher cost-sharingtiered drug is being used to treat. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that tiering exception criteria are notmet because there are no lower cost-sharing tiered drugs of the same type for treating the enrollee'scondition. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide a tiering exception for Ursodiol.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Linzess for the 2019 coverage year. 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 Linzess. Linzess is requested for treatment of irritable bowel syndrome with constipation. Linzess is a brand drug on tier 3 of the Plan's 2019 formulary. Eligibility for a tiering exception requires the presence of at least one similar lower tier brand drug on the Plan's formulary to treat the enrollee's condition. There are no similar brand drugs on the lower tiers of the Plan's 2019 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.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 Linzess.NOTE: this review was for a tiering exception request for the 2019 coverage year. If you would like to pursue a tiering exception request for the 2020 coverage year, you may wish to submit that request to the Plan at this time. The Plan has not provided any documentation that a 2020 tiering exception request has been reviewed at this time.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Ipratropium-Albuterol nebulizer solution. 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 Part A or Part B of Medicare for that individual. Medicare Part B may pay for supplies necessary for the effective use of durable medical equipment, including drugs and biologicals which must be put directly into the equipment in order to achieve the therapeutic benefit of the durable medical equipment. Medicare Part B local policy states that a small volume nebulizer and related compressor are covered when medically necessary to administer Ipratropium-Albuterol nebulizer solution for the management of obstructive pulmonary disease. In this case, the record shows that Ipratropium-Albuterol nebulizer solution is administered through a nebulizer in the home for a diagnosis of chronic bronchitis. There is no indication that it is not administered through a small volume nebulizer. It appears that this medication is eligible for coverage under Part B rather than Part D. Drugs which are eligible for coverage under Part B are excluded from Part D coverage by Medicare law. Therefore, it is our decision that the Part D Plan is not required to cover Ipratropium-Albuterol nebulizer solution. 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.You may wish to submit this request to the Medicare Part B carrier.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

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

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Xarelto. 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 Xarelto. The drug is requested to treat atrial fibrillation, Embolism Prophylaxis. 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 (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 Xarelto.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Amphotericin-B Compound. 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 Amphotericin-B Compound is not FDA approved for both safety and effectiveness by checking FDA sources. Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover Amphotericin-B Compound. 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.