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

You asked the Plan to cover Tysabri 300 mg/15 mL 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 Tysabri 300 mg/15 mL every 5 weeks.The drug is requested to treat relapsing/progressive multiple sclerosis. Upon reconsideration, the prescribing physiican has submitted a TOUCH (Tysabri Outreach Unified Commitment to Health) program approval form. The prescriber states that the enrollee, doctor, and provider are all enrolled in the TOUCH program. The enrollee satisfies the Plan's coverage criteria.Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that prior authorization criteria are met.Medicare rules allow a Part D Plan to manage its formulary by requiring prior approval for certain drugs. Based on the available documentation, our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that prior approval criteria are met. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is required to cover Tysabri.
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 receivedthis 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 atiering exception for Vimpat 150mg. Vimpat 150mg is requested to treat the enrollee's condition. The requesteddrug is a brand drug on Tier 4 of the Plan's formulary. There are no available lower tier brand drugs on thePlan's formulary to treat the enrollee's condition. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for a tieringexception. 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 sametype (such as brand or biologic drugs when considering an exception for a brand or biologic drug) in a lowercost-sharing tier approved for treating the same condition that the higher cost-sharing tiered drug is being usedto treat. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that tiering exception criteria are not met because there are nolower cost-sharing tiered drugs of the same type for treating the enrollee's condition. Therefore, our decision isthe Plan is not required to provide a tiering exception for Vimpat.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Testosterone. 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 Testosterone 1.62% Gel Pump. The drug is requested to treat hypogonadism, testicular hypofunction(unspecified), which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use. The Medicare-approved compendia do notcontain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for treatment of the notedcondition. Therefore, the requested drug is not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication asdefined by Medicare law. As such, an exceptions request based on medical necessity cannot be consideredbecause 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 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 Testosterone for the diagnosed condition. As a result, the drugis not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, it cannotbe covered 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 Testosterone.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 Spravato. The Plan did not grant this request. Wereceived 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 Spravato is currently beingcovered for the enrollee through a formulary exception. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not requiredto provide a tiering exception for Spravato.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Testosterone 1.62% Gel pump. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the request for Testosterone 1.62% Gel pump.The drug is requested to treat testicular hypofunction/late onset age related hypogonadism, 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 Testosterone 1.62% Gel pump 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 Testosterone 1.62% Gel pump. 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 Tadalafil. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.If a Plan maintains a specialty tier, the Plan may design its exception process so that drugs placed in the specialty tier are not eligible for a tiering exception. Tadalafil is in the specialty tier. The record indicates the Plan has chosen to exclude the specialty tier from the tiering exception process. Therefore, the Plan is not required to provide a tiering exception for Tadalafil.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

You asked the Plan to cover Carvedilol ER 20 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 Carvedilol ER 20 mg capsule. The drug is requested to treat cardiomyopathy. On 03/19/2020 the prescriber sent additional information and medical records documenting trial and failure (due to side effects) of formulary alternatives Atenolol and Bisoprolol. 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 Carvedilol ER 20 mg.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 Gralise. 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 Gralise. The drug is requested to treat type 2 diabetes with diabetic neuropathy, and unspecified degenerative disease of nervous system, 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 Gralise 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 Gralise. 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 Synthroid. 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 Synthroid.Synthroid is requested to treat your condition. The requested 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 your 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 Synthroid.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Sodium Bicarbonate. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.Medicare Part D does not cover non-prescription drugs. We checked FDA approved sources for the drug's classification or determined from other available resources that the drug is a non-prescription or OTC drug. Therefore, Sodium Bicarbonate is not eligible for Part D coverage, and the Plan is not required to cover it under the Part D benefit. 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

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 Onglyza, 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 Onglyza, 5 mg tablet.The drug is requested to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus. 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 Onglyza, 5 mg tablet.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Dilantin. 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 Dilantin 100 mg capsule (ER). Dilantin 100 mg capsule (ER) 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.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 Dilantin.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Azathioprine. 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 Azathioprine. The drug is requested to treat chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuritis, which isan off-label (non-FDA approved) use. The Medicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations tosupport the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for treatment of the noted condition. Therefore, therequested drug is not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. Assuch, an exceptions request based on medical necessity cannot be considered because the requested drug, asprescribed, does not meet the definition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, the requested drug is noteligible 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 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 Azathioprine for the diagnosed condition. As a result, the drugis not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, it cannotbe covered 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 Azathioprine.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 Hizentra. 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 Part B pays for the rental or purchase of DME if the equipment is used in the patient's home or in an institution that is used as a home. Payment may be made for supplies necessary for the effective use of DME, including drugs and biologicals which must be put directly into the equipment in order to achieve the therapeutic benefit of the DME. Medicare Part B local policy states that an external infusion pump is covered for administration of subcutaneous immune globulin if the subcutaneous immune globulin preparation is a pooled plasma derivative which is approved for the treatment of primary immune deficiency disease; and the patient has a diagnosis of primary immune deficiency disease. In this case, Hizentra is being administered via external infusion pump in the home, and according to submitted medical records is being used for ICD-10 diagnosis code D83.0. This diagnosis is eligible for coverage under Medicare Part B. Thus, Hizentra as prescribed and administered in this case appears to be eligible for Part B coverage. 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 Hizentra.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 cover Epidiolex. 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 Epidiolex.Epidiolex is requested for treatment of refractory epilepsy not associated with Lennox-Gastaut or Dravet Syndrome, which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use. You had discussed the enrollee's clinical history and why the requested drug is being prescribed; however 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 Epidiolex 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 Epidiolex. 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 us as required by Medicare rules because it did not make a timely decision.You asked the Plan to cover Trulance, 3 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 Trulance 3 mg tablet.The drug is requested to treat irritable bowel syndrome with constipation. Additional medical information was requested by the Part D QIC. The prescribing physician was asked to address formulary alternatives tried and failed. The prescriber statement was not returned. The prescriber has not indicated why all alternatives required by the Plan (Amitiza capsule and Linzess capsule) 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 Trulance, 3 mg tablet.