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 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 Accu-Check Guide test strips. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.   Medicare rules state that the definition of a Part D drug includes medical supplies directly associated with the injection of insulin. Test strips, lancets and needle disposal systems are not considered medical supplies directly associated with the delivery of insulin for purposes of coverage under Part D. You asked the Part D Plan to provide coverage for test strips. Diabetic test strips are a medical supply that is specifically excluded from Part D coverage by Medicare law. Therefore, our decision is the Part D Plan is not required to cover Accu-Check Guide test strips.  This decision does not concern the medical necessity or appropriateness of the requested item. It only establishes if payment can be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.  Please contact the Plan for more information regarding coverage of Accu-Check Guide test strips under the Part B 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. Januvia 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 Januvia.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Xeljanz XR. 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 Xeljanz XR. The drug is requested to treat dermatomyositis, 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 Xeljanz XR 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 Xeljanz XR.  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 Seroquel. 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 Seroquel. The drug is requested to treat F39, Unspecified mood [affective] disorder, 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 Seroquel 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 Seroquel.  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 Aranesp. 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 Aranesp.   Aranesp is requested to treat anemia of chronic renal failure in an enrollee not on dialysis.  This request is for continuation of therapy.  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.  You stated in the appeal that the enrollee's hemoglobin level was 12.1 g/dl on August 31, 2020 and 12.4 g/dl on May 28, 2020.  The enrollee does not satisfy the Plan's coverage criteria. 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. 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. APlan must grant an exception to prior approval rules if it determines that the requested drug is medicallynecessary, consistent with the prescriber's statement. Based on the available documentation, our PhysicianReviewer's opinion is that an exception to prior approval criteria is not met. Therefore, the Plan is notrequired to cover Aranesp.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Auvi-Q. 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 Auvi-Q auto-injector. The drug is requested for life-threatening allergic reactions/emergency use after receiving office allergy shots in this 66-year-old enrollee with allergic rhinitis. The prescriber has not indicated why all alternatives required by the Plan (SymiEpi prefilled syringe and Epinephrine auto-injector) 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 Auvi-Q.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Northera. 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 Northera. The drug is requested to treat Neurogenic Orthostatic Hypotension. The drug is a brand drug on Tier 4 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 Northera.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Trelegy Ellipta. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.   Medicare rules do not require the Part D plan to grant a tiering exception for a brand or biologic drug of the same type if the lower tier(s) on the formulary only contain(s) generic alternative drugs. Trelegy Ellipta is a Tier 3 brand drug. The lower cost-sharing tier(s) only contain(s) generic alternative drugs. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide a tiering exception for Trelegy Ellipta.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

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

You asked the Plan to cover Dronabinol. 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 Dronabinol. The drug is requested to treat weight loss and loss of appetite in an enrollee with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome and Sjogren's disease, 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 Dronabinol 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 Dronabinol.  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: Partially Favorable

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 Ertapenem sodium 1 gram injection powder for solution and Sodium Chloride 0.9%. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.ErtapenemWe asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the request for Ertapenem sodium 1 gram injection powder for solution.The drug is requested to treat a urinary tract infection. Submitted medical records document an elevated white blood cell count and the enrollee's hospitalization indicating a complicated course. 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. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that prior authorization criteria are met.Sodium ChlorideFor coverage under Part D, Medicare requires that the drug must be prescribed for a medically accepted indication. If a drug is not used for a medically accepted indication of therapeutic value on the body, it cannot satisfy the definition of a Part D drug. Sodium Chloride is used as a dilutant in the reconstitution of the Ertapenem compound. Sodium Chloride's use in this instance is not therapeutic. Thus, Sodium Chloride 0.9% does not meet the definition of a Part D drug. Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover Sodium Chloride.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Folbic. 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 Folbic is not FDA approved for both safety and effectiveness by checking FDA sources. Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover Folbic.  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 provide a tiering exception for Synjardy XR. 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 Synjardy XR. The drug is requested to treat Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Synjardy XR 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 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 your condition. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide a tiering exception for Synjardy XR.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Armodafinil. 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 Armodafinil. The drug is requested to treat multiple sclerosis related fatigue, 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 Armodafinil 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 Armodafinil.  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 Medical Marijuana. 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 Medical Marijuana is not FDA approved for both safety and effectiveness by checking FDA sources. Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover Medical Marijuana.  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 Motegrity. 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 Motegrity. The drug is requested to treat K59.09 - Other constipation. Per the provided office notes the enrollee's constipation is of unclear etiology. 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 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 Motegrity.