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

You asked the Plan to cover Metaxalone, 800 mg tablet. The Plan did not grant this request. We receivedthis case to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor Metaxalone, 800 mg tablet.The drug is requested to treat chronic musculoskeletal pain and muscle spasms, which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use. The Medicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use ofthe requested 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 Metaxalone, 800 mg tablet for the diagnosed condition. As aresult, the drug is not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. Assuch, it cannot be covered under the Medicare Part D benefit for this condition. An exceptions requestbased on medical necessity cannot be considered because this drug, as prescribed, does not meet thedefinition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, our decision is that the Plan is not required to providecoverage for Metaxalone, 800 mg tablet.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 cover Lansoprazole DR. 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 Lansoprazole DR. The drug is requested to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease. The prescriber has not indicated (with patient specific medical rationale) why all alternatives required by the Plan (including Dexilant capsules) 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 Lansoprazole DR.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Lidocaine-Prilocaine cream. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.Medicare law requires that all drugs and biologicals used in the treatment of ESRD or AKI be included in the ESRD PPS payment bundle, regardless of the reason why the drug is being prescribed and regardless of whether or not the drug is furnished by a dialysis facility. Drugs that are always considered ESRD and AKI-related include access management drugs, anemia management drugs, anti-infectives to treat site access infection, bone and mineral metabolism drugs and cellular management drugs. In this case, Lidocaine-Prilocaine cream is being prescribed to an enrollee who has ESRD or AKI and is on dialysis. Lidocaine-Prilocaine cream is a class of medication which is always considered ESRD or AKI-related for purposes of the Part B ESRD payment bundle. Thus, the requested drug is eligible for coverage under the Part B ESRD payment bundle, regardless of the reason why the drug is being prescribed and regardless of whether or not the drug is being furnished by a dialysis facility. 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 Lidocaine-Prilocaine cream.This decision does not concern the medical necessity or appropriateness of the requested drug. It onlyestablishes 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 cover Otezla. 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 Otezla 30 mg tablet.The drug is requested to treat psoriasis. The prescriber has not indicated why all alternatives required by thePlan (including Humira, Remicade and Stelara) would likely not be as effective for the enrollee as therequested drug; and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm to the enrollee. Therefore, anexception to the Plan's coverage criteria is not supported. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is thatformulary 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 Otezla.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Omeprazole DR. 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 Omeprazole DR 20 mg capsule. The drug is requested to treat acid reflux. The drug is on Tier 2 of the Plan's formulary. There are no available lower tier drugs on the Plan's formulary to treat your 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 Omeprazole DR.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Tretinoin gel. 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 Tretinoin gel.The drug is requested to treat L73.8, sebaceous hyperplasia, 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 Tretinoin gel 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 Tretinoin gel. 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

Medicare rules require a Part D Plan to issue a decision regarding coverage within the specified timeframe.If the Plan does not make a timely decision, this is considered a denial. The Plan forwarded this case to usas required by Medicare rules because it did not make a timely decision.You asked the Plan to cover Taltz 80 mg/mL. 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 Taltz 80 mg/mL.The drug is requested to treat psoriasis. The prescriber has not indicated why additional alternativesrequired by the Plan (Cosentyx and Skyrizi) would likely not be as effective for the enrollee as therequested drug; and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm to the enrollee. Therefore, anexception to the Plan's coverage criteria is not supported. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is thatformulary 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 Taltz 80 mg/mL.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Dupixent. 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 Dupixent. The drug is requested to treat asthma. The enrollee does not satisfy the Plan's coverage criteria. The prescriber has not sufficiently addressed the Plan's coverage criteria (no indication of trial and failure of Spiriva) 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 Dupixent.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Symbicort. 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 Symbicort. The drug is requested to treat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.The drug is on tier 3 of the Plan's formulary. There are no available lower tier brand drugs on the Plan'sformulary to treat the enrollee's condition. Therefore, the drug is not eligible for a tiering exception. OurPhysician 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 thesame type (such as brand or biologic drugs when considering an exception for a brand or biologic drug) in alower cost-sharing tier approved for treating the same condition that the higher cost-sharing tiered drug isbeing used to treat. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that tiering exception criteria are not met becausethere 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 Symbicort.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Synthroid. 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 Synthroid 125 mcg tablet. The drug is requested to treat hypothyroidism. Thedrug is on Tier 4 of the Plan's formulary. There are no available (branded) lower tier drugs on the Plan'sformulary to treat your condition. Therefore, the drug is not eligible for a tiering exception. Our PhysicianReviewer'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 thesame type (such as brand or biologic drugs when considering an exception for a brand or biologic drug) in alower cost-sharing tier approved for treating the same condition that the higher cost-sharing tiered drug isbeing used to treat. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that tiering exception criteria are not met becausethere 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 or reimbursement forSynthroid.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Vivelle-Dot Patch. The Plan did not grant thisrequest. We received this case to conduct an independent review.Medicare law and Plan rules do not allow tiering exceptions for non-formulary drugs being coveredthrough a formulary exception. The documentation in the record shows that Vivelle-Dot Patch is currentlybeing covered for the enrollee through a formulary exception. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is notrequired to provide a tiering exception for Vivelle-Dot Patch.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

Medicare rules require a Part D Plan to issue a decision regarding coverage within the specified timeframe.If the Plan does not make a timely decision, this is considered a denial. The Plan forwarded this case to usas required by Medicare rules because it did not make a timely decision.You asked the Plan to cover Testosterone Cypionate. The Plan did not grant this request. We received thiscase to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor Testosterone Cypionate. Testosterone Cypionate is requested to treat an unknown diagnosis. Theprescriber was asked to state the enrollee's diagnosis, because there was no prescriber statement of theenrollee's diagnosis in the case file. The prescriber was also asked to address medical necessity for therequested drug. 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 medicallyaccepted indication as defined by Medicare law. In addition, an exceptions request based on medicalnecessity cannot be considered because it cannot be confirmed that the drug meets the definition of aMedicare Part D drug.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 needed additional information from the prescriber to determine whether theenrollee is using Testosterone Cypionate for an FDA-approved use, or a use listed in the Medicareapprovedcompendia. The requested information was not received. As a result, we could not confirm thatthe drug is being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, itcannot be covered under the Medicare Part D benefit. An exceptions request based on medical necessitycannot be considered because it cannot be confirmed that the drug meets the definition of a Medicare PartD drug. Therefore, our decision is that the Plan is not required to provide coverage for TestosteroneCypionate.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 Januvia. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the request for a tiering exception for Januvia.The drug is requested to treat diabetes mellitus. The drug is 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 Januvia.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Analpram HC cream. The Plan did not grant this request. We received thiscase to conduct an independent review.Medicare Part D does not cover LTE DESI drugs. Analpram HC cream is identified as an LTE DESI drugon the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) website. Therefore, the Plan is not required tocover Analpram HC cream.This decision does not address the medical necessity or appropriateness of the requested drug. It onlyestablishes that payment cannot be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Cayston 75 mg inhalation powder for solution. 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 Cayston 75 mg inhalation powder for solution. The drug is requested to treat cystic fibrosis. The enrollee does not satisfy the Plan's coverage criteria (forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) reported to be 21% of predicted in records provided). You have not sufficiently addressed the Plan's coverage criteria and/or have not indicated why all alternatives required by the Plan would likely not be as effective for the enrollee as the requested drug, and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm to the enrollee. Of note, a request for records was sent to the prescriber along with a request to address the Plan's coverage criteria. No response was received; no other supporting medical records were provided. 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 Cayston 75 mg inhalation powder for solution.
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 Hydroxyzine 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 Hydroxyzine HCL. The drug is requested to treat anxiety. You have not indicated (with supporting medical records) 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. Of note, a request for records was sent to you to support the statement that the formulary exception was medically necessary. Despite the request no supporting medical records were provided. 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 Hydroxyzine HCL.