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

You asked the Plan to provide additional reimbursement for Mupirocin 2% Ointment received November 19, 2019. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.   The Part D Plan covers prescriptions filled at an out-of-network pharmacy only in certain limited circumstances. The Plan submitted documentation showing that they approved coverage. They calculated reimbursement based on the total cost of the drug, less your required copayment amount, and less the difference between what the Plan normally pays for the drug and what the out-of-network pharmacy (i.e., hospital or provider's office) charged you.    The case record indicates that the Plan provided coverage and reimbursement in accordance with the Part D Plan rules for out-of-network reimbursement. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide any additional reimbursement for Mupirocin 2% Ointment received November 19, 2019.
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 or provide reimbursement for TDAP Vaccine and its administration received August 10, 2020 at your physician's office. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.The Part D Plan covers certain vaccines purchased and/or administered out-of-network. If an enrollee receives a vaccine from an out-of-network provider, the enrollee will generally have to pay the full cost for the vaccine. The enrollee may then submit a request for reimbursement with proof of payment to ask the Plan to pay its share of the cost. In this case, the record shows that you were administered TDAP Vaccine on August 10, 2020 at your physician's office. You submitted a request for reimbursement however, the record does not include proof of payment in full for the vaccine. The Plan's criteria for out-of-network coverage and reimbursement have not been met. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to cover or provide reimbursement for TDAP Vaccine and its administration received August 10, 2020 at your physician's office.
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 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 Lidocaine 5% Patch.Lidocaine 5% Patch is requested for treatment symptoms related to bilateral knee replacement and status post shoulder repair, and for treatment of chronic hip pain of unstated cause, 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 conditions.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 conditions. 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 these conditions. 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 Silodosin. 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 Silodosin. Silodosin is requested for ongoing treatment of urinary retention related to a flaccid neuropathic bladder, which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use. The prescriber states that the enrollee has taken the requested medication for several years for the noted indication; 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 Silodosin 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 Silodosin. 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 Azathioprine. 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 Azathioprine. Azathioprine is requested for treatment of autoimmune necrotizing myopathy, which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use. The prescriber states that the enrollee has successfully used Azathioprine in the past; 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 Azathioprine 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 Azathioprine. 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 Buprenorphine 5 mcg/hr 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 Buprenorphine 5 mcg/hour patch. The drug is requested to treat 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 Buprenorphine 5 mcg/hr patch.
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 Trihexyphenidyl HCL. 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 Trihexyphenidyl HCL. The drug is requested to treat other symbolic dysfunctions. The prescriber was asked to clarify the enrollee's diagnosis because it was unclear from the case file if the underlying etiology of the enrollee's other symbolic dysfunctions is a medically accepted indication for the drug. The prescriber was also asked if the benefit of therapy with this prescribed medication outweigh the potential risks for this patient. A response from the prescriber was not received. Therefore, based on the current record, there is insufficient documentation that the requested medication is being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. In addition, prior authorization exception criteria are not met.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 Trihexyphenidyl HCL 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 Trihexyphenidyl HCL.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 Lidoderm 5% patch. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.We asked a Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Plan was correct in denying the request for Lidoderm 5% patch, which is not on the Plan's formulary. Our Physician Reviewer needed additional information from the prescriber to make this determination. The prescriber was asked to clarify the enrollee's diagnosis and to address whether the drugs offered by the Plan would: (1) not be as effective as the requested non-formulary drug; and/or (2) have adverse effects. The requested information was not received. Based on a review of the available documentation, 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 Lidoderm 5% patch.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Tadalafil 5 mg. 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 Tadalafil (Cialis) 5 mg. The drug is requested to treat erectile dysfunction (ED). Sexual/erectile dysfunction drugs prescribed to treat sexual/erectile dysfunction or other conditions for which the drug is not FDA approved are excluded from coverage under Medicare Part D.The prescriber also documented a diagnosis of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) that subsequently developed after the diagnosis of ED. Additional medical information was requested by the Part D QIC. The prescribing physician was asked to address if the enrollee has tried and failed an alpha blocker and a 5-alpha reductase inhibitor, and to submit medical records to support the diagnosis of BPH. The prescriber statement was not returned. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from coverage based on the diagnosis of ED.Medicare law excludes certain drugs from Part D coverage. Tadalafil 5 mg is one of those excluded drugs because it is a drug used to treat sexual or erectile dysfunction. The record submitted by the Plan does not indicate that they provide supplemental coverage for Tadalafil 5 mg. Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover Tadalafil 5 mg. This decision does not address the medical necessity or appropriateness of the requested drug. It only establishes that payment cannot be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Memantine HCL ER, 7 mg capsule. 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 Memantine HCL ER.Memantine HCL ER is requested for treatment of late onset Alzheimer's disease without behavioral disturbance. The prescriber states that the enrollee will only take once daily medication. The prescriber has not provided sufficient documentation that 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 Memantine HCL ER, 7 mg capsule.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Farxiga. 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 Farxiga. The drug is requested to treat Type 2 diabetes mellitus. You have not indicated why all alternatives required by the Plan (Metformin or a Metformin-containing combination product) 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 Farxiga.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Cyclobenzaprine HCL. 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 Cyclobenzaprine HCL. The drug is requested to treat skeletal muscle spasms not related to an acute musculoskeletal condition, 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 Cyclobenzaprine HCL 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 Cyclobenzaprine HCL. 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 Dicyclomine HCL. 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 Dicyclomine HCL. Dicyclomine HCL is requested for treatment of the enrollee's condition. Dicyclomine HCL is on Tier 3 of the Plan's formulary. There are no similar lower tier drugs available 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 Dicyclomine HCL.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Cyclobenzaprine HCL. 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 Cyclobenzaprine HCL.Cyclobenzaprine HCL is requested for ongoing treatment of chronic bilateral hip pain, 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 Cyclobenzaprine HCL 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 Cyclobenzaprine HCL. 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 Lamictal XR. 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 Lamictal XR is currently being covered for the enrollee through a formulary exception. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide a tiering exception for Lamictal XR.