Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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 cover Sildenafil. 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 Sildenafil. The drug is requested to treat pulmonary hypertension. The enrollee does not satisfy thePlan's coverage criteria. You have not sufficiently addressed the Plan's coverage criteria (no documentationprovided showing that the diagnosis was confirmed by right heart catheterization, pretreatment meanpulmonary arterial pressure is greater than or equal to 25 mm Hg, pretreatment pulmonary capillary wedgepressure is less than or equal to 15 mm Hg or pretreatment pulmonary vascular resistance is greater than 3Wood units) and/or have not indicated why all alternatives required by the Plan would likely not be aseffective for the enrollee as the requested drug, and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harmto the enrollee. Our Physician's opinion is that neither prior authorization nor prior authorization exceptioncriteria 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 Sildenafil.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Lidocaine 5% Patch. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this caseto conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor Lidocaine 5% Patch.The drug is requested to treat osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis knee pain, which are off-label (non-FDA approved) uses. The Medicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use ofthe requested drug, as prescribed, for treatment of the noted conditions. 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 conditions.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 Lidocaine 5% Patch for the diagnosed conditions. As a result,the drug is not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, itcannot be covered under the Medicare Part D benefit for these conditions. An exceptions request based onmedical necessity cannot be considered because this drug, as prescribed, does not meet the definition of aMedicare Part D drug. Therefore, our decision is that the Plan is not required to provide coverage forLidocaine 5% Patch.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 Sildenafil. 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 Sildenafil. The drug is requested to treat pulmonary arterial hypertension. The enrollee does not satisfythe Plan's coverage criteria. You have not sufficiently addressed the Plan's coverage criteria (nodocumentation provided that the diagnosis of pulmonary arterial hypertension was confirmed by right heartcatheterization or that the patient is currently on any therapy for the diagnosis of pulmonary arterialhypertension) and/or have not indicated why all alternatives required by the Plan would likely not be aseffective for the enrollee as the requested drug, and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harmto the enrollee. Our Physician's opinion is that neither prior authorization nor prior authorization exceptioncriteria 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 Sildenafil.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Dronabinol. 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 Dronabinol.Dronabinol is requested for treatment of loss of appetite, fatigue, and mild protein/calorie malnutrition, inthis enrollee who is status post liver transplant, which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use. You havedescribed the enrollee's clinical course and have submitted medical literature which discusses the use ofCannabinoids in preventing allograft rejection; however the Medicare-approved compendia do not containany 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 byMedicare law. As such, an exceptions request based on medical necessity cannot be considered because therequested drug, as prescribed, does not meet the definition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, therequested 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 Dronabinol for the diagnosed condition. As a result, the drug isnot being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, it cannot becovered under the Medicare Part D benefit for this condition. An exceptions request based on medicalnecessity cannot be considered because this drug, as prescribed, does not meet the definition of a MedicarePart D drug. Therefore, our decision is that the Plan is not required to provide coverage for Dronabinol.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 Lidocaine 5% Patch. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this caseto conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor Lidocaine 5% Patch. The drug is requested to treat chronic right shoulder pain, which is an off-label(non-FDA approved) use. The Medicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations to support theuse of the requested drug, as prescribed, for treatment of the noted condition. Therefore, the requested drugis not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, anexceptions 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 Lidocaine 5% Patch 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, itcannot be covered under the Medicare Part D benefit for this condition. An exceptions request based onmedical necessity cannot be considered because this drug, as prescribed, does not meet the definition of aMedicare Part D drug. Therefore, our decision is that the Plan is not required to provide coverage forLidocaine 5% Patch.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 Potassium Citrate 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 a tiering exception for Potassium Citrate ER. The drug is requested to treat nephrolithiasis.Potassium Citrate ER is a generic drug on Tier 3 of the Plan's formulary. There are no available lower tier generic 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 Potassium Citrate ER.
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. The drug is requested to treat the enrollee's condition. The drug is abrand drug on tier 4 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 Synthroid.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Lidocaine 5% Patch . The Plan did not grant this request. We received thiscase to conduct an independent review.We asked a Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Plan was correct in denying the request forLidocaine 5% Patch which is subject to prior approval. Our Physician Reviewer needed additionalinformation from you to make this determination. You were asked to address whether the drugs offered bythe Plan for the treatment of the enrollee's condition would: (1) not be as effective as the requested drug;and/or (2) have adverse effects. In addition, medically accepted criteria for the diagnosis was requested.The requested information was not received. Based on a review of the available documentation, neitherprior authorization criteria 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 Lidocaine 5% Patch.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Livalo. 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 Livalo. The drug is requested to treat hypercholesterolemia. 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 Livalo.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

You asked the Plan to cover Nucala 100 mg/mL. 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 Nucala 100 mg/mL.Nucala 100 mg/mL is requested for ongoing treatment of Churg Strauss syndrome, (Eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis). It is noted that the enrollee had an eosinophil count of 35,000 at the time of diagnosis, and that she was started on the requested drug in June 2016 which resulted in an improvement in symptoms.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 Nucala 100 mg/mL.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Verzenio. 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 Verzenio. The drug is requested to treat glioblastoma, which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use.The enrollee is a 70 year old man with recurrent glioblastoma. He has been treated with surgery, radiation,Temozolomide and Avastin. Next generation sequencing identified a CDK4 mutation suggesting possibleresponse to Abemaciclib (Verzenio.) You request Verzenio to treat him. Journal articles were submitted insupport of the request and were reviewed.The Medicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, asprescribed, for treatment of the noted condition. There was no peer-reviewed, clinically relevant, medicalliterature from an approved journal submitted to support this appeal. 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. For Part D drugs used in an anticancer chemotherapeutic regimen, a medically acceptedindication means a use that is approved by the FDA or a use that is supported by one or more citations inMedicare approved compendia or peer-reviewed medical literature in CMS-approved journals orpublications.Our Physician Reviewer reviewed this file and determined that there are no citations in the Medicareapproved compendia and there was no peer-reviewed literature from an approved journal submitted tosupport the use of Verzenio for the diagnosed condition. As a result, the drug is not being prescribed for amedically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, it cannot be covered under theMedicare Part D benefit for this condition. An exceptions request based on medical necessity cannot beconsidered 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 Verzenio.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 Flector 1.3% Patch. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this caseto conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor Flector 1.3% Patch. The drug is requested to treat arthritic spur pain of the right foot and chronic painsyndrome, which are off-label (non-FDA approved) uses. The Medicare-approved compendia do notcontain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for treatment of the notedconditions. 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 conditions.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 Flector 1.3% Patch for the diagnosed conditions. As a result,the drug is not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, itcannot be covered under the Medicare Part D benefit for these conditions. An exceptions request based onmedical necessity cannot be considered because this drug, as prescribed, does not meet the definition of aMedicare Part D drug. Therefore, our decision is that the Plan is not required to provide coverage forFlector 1.3% Patch.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 Sensipar. 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 Sensipar 30mg. Sensipar 30mg is requested to treat the enrollee's condition. Therequested drug is a brand drug on tier 4 of the Plan's formulary. There are no available lower tier branddrugs on the Plan's formulary to treat the enrollee's condition. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligiblefor 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 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 Sensipar.