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

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Oxycontin ER. 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 covered through a formulary exception. The documentation in the record shows that Oxycontin ER is currently being covered for you through a formulary exception. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide a tiering exception for Oxycontin ER.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Supradol, Doxon, Arcoxia and Cipro XR purchased between January 17, 2020 and January 19, 2020 while traveling in Cancun, Mexico. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.Supradol, Doxon, Arcoxia and Cipro XR are not covered by Medicare because they were purchased outside the United States. Therefore, our decision is that the Part D Plan is not required to pay for Supradol, Doxon, Arcoxia and Cipro XR purchased while traveling in Cancun Mexico. This decision does not concern the medical appropriateness 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 Zolpidem. 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 Zolpidem. Zolpidem is on tier 4 of the plan's formulary. There are no similarlower tier drugs on the Plan's formulary to treat the enrollee's condition. Therefore, the requested drug isnot eligible for a tiering exception. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that tiering exception criteria arenot 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 Zolpidem.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Spiriva Handihaler. 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 Spiriva HandiHaler 19mcg capsules. Spiriva HandiHaler 19mcg capsules 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 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 Spiriva Handihaler.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Entecavir. 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 Entecavir 0.5 mg tablet. The drug is requested to treat hepatitis B infection. Thedrug is on Tier 4 of the Plan's formulary. On 03/05/2020 you sent additional information and medicalrecords addressing the lower tier alternative Lamivudine. You have indicated why all eligible lower tieralternatives on the Plan's formulary to treat the enrollee's condition (1) would not be as effective for theenrollee as the requested drug; and/or (2) would have adverse effects for the enrollee. Our PhysicianReviewer's opinion is that tiering exception criteria are met.Medicare rules permit a Plan to grant an exception to its tiering structure whenever it determines that thenon-preferred or higher cost-sharing drug for treatment of the enrollee's condition is medically necessaryconsistent with the prescriber's statement. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that tiering exceptioncriteria are met. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is required to provide a tiering exception for Entecavirfrom the date of the Plan's initial denial.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Arikayce. 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 Arikayce. The drug is requested to treat Mycobacterium xenopi, 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 Arikayce 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 Arikayce. 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 Humira. 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 Humira 40 mg/0.4 mL. The drug is requested to treat sarcoidosis, 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 Humira 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 Humira.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 Horizant ER. 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 Horizant ER. Horizant ER is requested for ongoing treatment of neuropathic due to radiculopathyassociated with cervical spinal stenosis, which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use. The 90-year-oldenrollee states she has failed several drugs, and that the requested drug has been effective for over a year;however the Medicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requesteddrug, as prescribed, for treatment of the noted condition. Therefore, the requested drug is not beingprescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, an exceptions requestbased on medical necessity cannot be considered because the requested drug, as prescribed, does not meetthe definition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for coverage underMedicare 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 Horizant ER for the diagnosed condition. As a result, the drugis not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, it cannotbe covered under the Medicare Part D benefit for this condition. An exceptions request based on medicalnecessity cannot be considered because this drug, as prescribed, does not meet the definition of a MedicarePart D drug. Therefore, our decision is that the Plan is not required to provide coverage for Horizant ER.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 Prolia. 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 Prolia (Denosumab) 60 mg/ml. The drug is requested to treat the enrollee'scondition. The drug is a brand drug on tier 3 of the Plan's formulary. There are no available lower tierbiologic brand drugs on the Plan's formulary to treat the enrollee's condition. Therefore, the drug is noteligible for a tiering exception. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that tiering exception criteria are notmet.Medicare rules permit a Plan to grant an exception to its tiering structure so long as there is a drug of thesame type in a lower cost-sharing tier approved for treating the same condition that the higher cost-sharingtiered drug is being used to treat. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that tiering exception criteria are notmet because there are no lower cost-sharing tiered drugs of the same type for treating the enrollee'scondition. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide a tiering exception for Prolia.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Riomet. 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 Riomet. The drug is requested to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus. The prescriber has not indicated why allalternatives 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 thePlan's coverage criteria is not supported. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that formulary exceptioncriteria 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 Riomet.
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 Benztropine. 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 Benztropine. The drug is requested to treat schizoaffective disorder depressive type, 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 Benztropine 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 Benztropine. 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 provide a tiering exception for Lantus Solostar. 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 (such as brand or biologic drugs when considering an exception for a brand or biologic drug) if the lower tier(s) on the formulary only contain(s) generic alternative drugs. Lantus Solostar 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 Lantus Solostar.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Hydromorphone ER. 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 Hydromorphone ER 12 mg tablet. The drug is requested to treat pain. The prescriber has not indicatedwhy all alternatives required by the Plan (including buprenorphine) would likely not be as effective for theenrollee 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 opinionis 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 Hydromorphone ER.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Diclofenac Sodium 3% Gel. 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 Sodium 3% Gel. The drug is requested to treat hand pain related to contracture after stroke, 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 Sodium 3% Gel 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 Sodium 3% Gel. 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 Dextroamphetamine-Amphetamine 20 mg, 90 tablets per 30 days. 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 Dextroamphetamine-Amphetamine 20 mg, 90 tablets per 30 days. Dextroamphetamine-Amphetamine 20 mg is requested for treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, unspecified type.The Plan has documented in the case file that the prescriber has indicated in a phone call with the Plan that the dose/quantity can be changed to Dextroamphetamine-Amphetamine 30 mg, 60 per 30 days which is within the quantity limit of the Plan. The prescriber has not indicated that the number of doses of the requested drug allowed by the Plan would likely be ineffective in treating the enrollee's condition and/or would likely cause harm to the enrollee. Therefore, an exception to the Plan's coverage criteria is not supported. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that quantity limit exception criteria are not met for Dextroamphetamine-Amphetamine 20 mg, 90 tablets per 30 days.Medicare rules allow a Part D Plan to manage its formulary by covering a limited quantity of certain drugs. A Plan must grant an exception if it determines that the requested dosage is medically reasonable and necessary, consistent with the prescriber's statement. Based on a review of the available documentation, our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that an exception to the quantity limit criteria is not met. Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover the requested quantity (90 tablets per 30 days) of Dextroamphetamine-Amphetamine 20 mg.
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. The drug is requested to treat altered mental status and disorientation, which are off-label (non-FDA approved) uses. The Medicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for treatment of the noted conditions. Therefore, the requested drug is not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, an exceptions request based on medical necessity cannot be considered because the requested drug, as prescribed, does not meet the definition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D for the noted 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 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.