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

You asked the Plan to cover Auryxia. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the request for Auryxia 210 mg tablet.Auryxia 210 mg tablet is requested to treat anemia and hyperphosphatemia related to chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage IV in this enrollee who is not yet on dialysis. For the diagnosis of anemia, Auryxia 210 mg is excluded from coverage under Medicare Part D because it is being used as a prescription vitamin/mineral. The diagnosis of hyperphosphatemia/disorder of phosphorus metabolism in this enrollee with CKD not on dialysis is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use for the requested drug. The Medicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for treatment of the disorder of phosphorus related to CKD in patients not on dialysis.In summary, the requested drug is not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law for the diagnosis of disorder of phosphorus metabolism related to CKD in an enrollee not on dialysis, and the requested drug is excluded from coverage for the diagnosis of anemia related to CKD.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 Auryxia 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 Auryxia. 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 Alprazolam. 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 Alprazolam 1 mg tablet.Alprazolam 1 mg tablet is requested to treat vertigo, which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use. The prescriber has stated that the enrollee has failed all other medications to treat the noted condition; 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 Alprazolam 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 Alprazolam. 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 Xifaxan. 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 Xifaxan 550 mg tablet three times daily #90 per 30 days.Xifaxan 550 mg tablet three times daily, #90 per 30 days is requested for ongoing treatment of irritable bowel syndrome associated with diarrhea, which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use. The Prescriber has detailed the enrollee's clinical history and why ongoing treatment with the Xifaxan is being requested; 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. Of note, Irritable bowel disease is a chronic disease which may require repeated courses of treatment with Xifaxan for ongoing symptoms rather than for a recurrence, medically accepted indication refers to the condition being treated, not the dosing, and the FDA label does not limit the use of Xifaxan to the dosing recommended in the label - longer and/or more than 3 courses of treatment are not excluded by the FDA label; however continuous, chronic use of Xifaxan to treat IBS-D is not a medically accepted indication.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 Xifaxan 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 Xifaxan. 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 Xeljanz. 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 5mg tablet.Xeljanz 5mg tablet is requested to treat atopic dermatitis, which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use. The prescriber has discussed the enrollee's clinical history and the medical necessity for the requested drug; 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 Xeljanz 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. 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: Favorable

You asked the Plan to cover Pregabalin. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the request for Pregabalin 75 mg capsule. Pregabalin 75 mg capsule is requested to treat severe neuropathic pain related to thalamic pain syndrome associated with a stroke in the left posterior hemisphere. 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 this drug for this condition. DRUGDEX cites results from the following reference in the FDA USE section Neuropathic pain - spinal cord injury: Finnerup NB, Attal N, Haroutounian S, et al: Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Neurol 2015; 14(2):162-173 which concluded that the requested drug is one of several drugs proposed as first line treatment of neuropathic pain. It is noted that the enrollee's condition is included in the patient population of studies cited. Therefore, this drug is being prescribed for a medically accepted indication. The enrollee does not satisfy the Plan's coverage criteria. 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 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 met. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is required to cover Pregabalin.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

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 Butalbital-APAP-Caff-Codeine. 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 Butalbital-APAP-Caffeine-Codeine. The drug is requested to treat the enrollee's condition. A request for prescriber statement was sent and not returned. 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. Because coverage is not provided, the requested drug does not satisfy the plan's opioid management criteria.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 Butalbital-APAP-Caff-Codeine.
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 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 (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 Cresemba. 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 Cresemba 186 mg capsule.Cresemba 186 mg capsule is requested as antifungal prophylaxis following treatment for rejection of lung transplant, which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use. The prescriber has discussed the enrollee's clinical history and the medical necessity for the requested drug; 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 Cresemba 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 Cresemba. 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 Oxycodone HCL ER. 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 Oxycodone HCL ER. The drug is requested to treat chronic pain. You 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. 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 Oxycodone HCL ER.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover CVS Senna Laxative. 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, CVS Senna Laxative 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 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 obstructive pulmonary disease with (acute) exacerbation (ICD-10 J44.1). 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

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 Ora-Blend susp. 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, Ora-Blend susp 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

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Entresto. 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 Entresto 49-51 mg.Entresto 49-51mg is requested to treat the enrollee's condition. The requested drug is a brand drug on tier 3 of the Plan's formulary. There are no similar 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 (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 Entresto.