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

You asked the Plan to cover Progesterone Micronized. The Plan did not grant this request. We received thiscase to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor Progesterone Micronized 100 mg capsule. The drug is requested to treat hot flashes, night sweats andosteoporosis, which are off-label (non-FDA approved) uses. In the appeal to the plan dated 1/22/2020, theprescriber stated that the diagnosis was hot flashes and night sweats (N95.1 - Menopausal and femaleclimacteric states). Then in the Reconsideration appeal dated 1/28/2020, the prescriber changed thediagnosis and stated that the diagnosis was osteoporosis (M81.0 - Age-related osteoporosis without currentpathological fracture). Relevant medical records were requested and not provided. The Medicare-approvedcompendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for treatmentof the noted conditions. Therefore, the requested drug is not being prescribed for a medically acceptedindication as defined by Medicare law. As such, an exceptions request based on medical necessity cannotbe considered because the requested drug, as prescribed, does not meet the definition of a Medicare Part Ddrug. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D for the notedconditions.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 Progesterone Micronized for the diagnosed condition. As aresult, the drug is not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. Assuch, it cannot be covered under the Medicare Part D benefit for this condition. An exceptions requestbased on medical necessity cannot be considered because this drug, as prescribed, does not meet thedefinition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, our decision is that the Plan is not required to providecoverage for Progesterone Micronized.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 Benicar. 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 Benicar 5 mg. The drug is requested to treat hypertension. In the Reconsideration appeal, the prescriber stated that the enrollee tried and failed Olmesartan. 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 Benicar.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Zolpidem. 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 Zolpidem 10mg Tablet. The drug is requested to treat insomnia. The enrollee does not satisfy the Plan's coverage criteria. The prescriber has not sufficiently addressed the Plan's coverage criteria and/or has not indicated why all alternatives required by the Plan (at least two of the following: Belsomra, ramelteon, doxepin, trazodone) would likely not be as effective for the enrollee as the requested drug, and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm to the enrollee.Our Physician's opinion is that neither prior authorization nor prior authorization exception criteria are met.Medicare rules allow a Part D Plan to manage its formulary by requiring prior approval for certain drugs. A Plan must grant an exception to prior approval rules if it determines that the requested drug is medically necessary, consistent with the prescriber's statement. Based on the available documentation, our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that an exception to prior approval criteria is not met. Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover Zolpidem.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Lidoderm Patch. 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 Lidoderm 5% Patch. The drug is requested to treat chronic neck pain associated with cervical discsyndrome in an enrollee with a history of multiple herniated discs after a motor vehicle collision in 2005,which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use. The Medicare-approved compendia do not contain anycitations 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 Lidoderm Patch for the diagnosed condition. As a result, thedrug 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 forLidoderm 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 Otezla 30 mg. 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 Otezla 30 mg tablet. The drug is requested to treat plaque psoriasis. You have not indicated why allalternatives required by the Plan (Cosentyx, Enbrel, Humira and Skyrizi) would likely not be as effectivefor the enrollee as the requested drug; and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm to theenrollee. Therefore, an exception to the Plan's coverage criteria is not supported. Our Physician Reviewer'sopinion 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 requesteddrug is medically necessary, consistent with the prescriber's statement. Based on a review of the availabledocumentation, our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that formulary exception criteria are not met.Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover Otezla.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Diclofenac Epolamine 1.3% Patch. 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 Diclofenac Epolamine 1.3% Patch. Diclofenac Epolamine 1.3% Patch is requested for treatment of chronic back pain related to multiple etiologies, 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 Diclofenac Epolamine 1.3% 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, 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 Diclofenac Epolamine 1.3% Patch.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

to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the request for Lidocaine 5% Patch. The drug is requested to treat neuropathy, which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use. The diagnosis was changed from unspecified neuropathy to diabetic neuropathy after the initial denial. Submitted medical records do not include any diagnosis of diabetes or diabetic neuropathy. 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 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, 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 Lidocaine 5% Patch. 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 Gralise. 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 Gralise 600 mg tab. The drug is requested to treat joint pain and G60.9/Hereditary and idiopathicneuropathy, which are off-label (non-FDA approved) uses. The prescriber initially stated that the requesteddrug is for the treatment of joint pain. Medical records from date of service 1/3/2020 were provided whichdocumented that Gralise was being prescribed for the treatment of joint pain. The prescriber changed thediagnosis to G60.9/Hereditary and idiopathic neuropathy in the request for reconsideration dated1/30/2020. Relevant medical records were requested but not provided to support the change in diagnosis.The Medicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, asprescribed, for treatment of the noted conditions. Therefore, the requested drug is not being prescribed for amedically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, an exceptions request based onmedical necessity cannot be considered because the requested drug, as prescribed, does not meet thedefinition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for coverage underMedicare 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 Gralise for the diagnosed condition. As a result, the drug is notbeing 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 Gralise.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 Lovenox Solution. The Plan did not grant this request.We received this case to conduct an independent review.Medicare law and Plan rules do not allow tiering exceptions for non-formulary drugs being coveredthrough a formulary exception. The documentation in the record shows that Lovenox Solution is currentlybeing covered for the enrollee through a formulary exception. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is notrequired to provide a tiering exception for Lovenox Solution.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Namzaric. 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 Namzaric 28/10 mg capsule. The drug is requested to treat Alzheimer's disease.The drug is on Tier 3 of the Plan's formulary. There are no available (branded) lower tier drugs on thePlan'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 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 Namzaric.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Megestrol Acetate. 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 Megestrol. The drug is requested to treat unspecified anorexia, which is an off-label (non-FDAapproved) use. The Medicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of therequested drug, as prescribed, for treatment of the noted condition. Therefore, the requested drug is notbeing prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, an exceptionsrequest based on medical necessity cannot be considered because the requested drug, as prescribed, doesnot meet the definition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for coverageunder Medicare Part D for the noted condition.For coverage under Part D, Medicare requires that the drug must be prescribed for a medically acceptedindication. A medically accepted indication means a use that is approved by the FDA or a use that issupported by one or more citations in Medicare approved compendia.Our Physician Reviewer reviewed this file and determined that there are no citations in the Medicareapproved compendia that support the use of Megestrol Acetate for the diagnosed condition. As a result, thedrug 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 forMegestrol Acetate.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 Tacrolimus ointment 0.1%. 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 Tacrolimus Ointment 0.1%. The drug is requested to treat chronic inflammatory pruritis/lichen simplex chronicus, 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 Tacrolimus ointment 0.1% 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 Tacrolimus ointment 0.1%. 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 Myrbetriq ER, 50 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 a tiering exception for Myrbetriq ER, 50 mg tablet. The drug is requested to treat the enrollee's condition. The drug 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 Myrbetriq ER, 50 mg tablet.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Tacrolimus. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.Medicare law specifically excludes coverage for any drug under the Part D program for which payment would be available under Parts A or B of Medicare for that individual. Coverage is available under Medicare Part B for prescription drugs used in immunosuppressive therapy furnished to a beneficiary who has received an organ transplant, provided the beneficiary receiving the drug was enrolled in Medicare Part A at the time of the organ transplant. The case record indicates that Tacrolimus is needed for a Kidney transplant performed March 22, 2008. According to Medicare enrollment records, the enrollee was determined to be entitled to Medicare Part A coverage at the time of the transplant. Thus, the transplant is considered a Medicare covered transplant and Tacrolimus is eligible for coverage under Medicare Part B. Drugs which are eligible for Part B coverage are excluded from Part D coverage by Medicare law. Therefore, our decision is that Part D Plan is not required to cover Tacrolimus. 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.