Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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 Livalo, 1 mg tablet, 60 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 Plan was correct in denying the request for Livalo, 1 mg tablet, 60 per 30 days.Livalo, 1 mg tablet, 60 per 30 days was requested for treatment of hypercholesterolemia. The prescriber had indicated that the enrollee had trialed Simvastatin and Lipitor. The Plan has step therapy and quantity limit criteria; additional information was requested from the prescriber to address the Plan's step therapy and quantity limit criteria. The prescriber states that the enrollee is taking Livalo 4 mg daily; however the prescriber has not indicated that the enrollee has tried all alternatives required by the Plan, or why the Plan's required step therapy drugs would likely not be as effective for the enrollee as the requested drug, and/or would likely cause adverse reactions or other harm to the enrollee. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that neither step therapy or step therapy exception criteria are met. Of note, the subject of this review is Livalo 1 mg, 60 per 30 days; coverage of Livalo 4 mg needs to be requested form the Plan. However, of note, coverage of Livalo 4 mg also has step therapy criteria which includes the trial of at least one more of the Plan's preferred statins - such as Rosuvastatin.Medicare rules allow a Part D Plan to manage its formulary by requiring step therapy for certain drugs. A Plan must grant an exception 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 an exception to step therapy criteria is not met. Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover Livalo, 1 mg tablet, 60 per 30 days.Please note: the request for a tiering exception (lower copayment) for Livalo, 1 mg tablet, 60 per 30 days was not reviewed. We cannot consider a tiering exception for a drug for which the Part D Plan is unable to provide coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Budesonide Suspension. The Plan did not grant this request. We received thiscase to conduct an independent review.Medicare law specifically excludes coverage for any drug for which payment would be available under PartA or Part B of Medicare for that individual. Medicare Part B may pay for supplies necessary for theeffective use of durable medical equipment, including drugs and biologicals which must be put directly intothe equipment in order to achieve the therapeutic benefit of the durable medical equipment. Medicare PartB local policy states that a small volume nebulizer and related compressor are covered when medicallynecessary to administer Budesonide Suspension for the management of obstructive pulmonary disease.In this case, the record shows that Budesonide Suspension is administered through a nebulizer in the homefor a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. There is no indication that it is not administeredthrough a small volume nebulizer. It appears that this medication is eligible for coverage under Part Brather than Part D. Drugs which are eligible for coverage under Part B are excluded from Part D coverageby Medicare law. Therefore, it is our decision that the Part D Plan is not required to cover BudesonideSuspension.This decision does not concern the medical necessity or appropriateness of the requested drug. It onlyestablishes if payment can be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.You may wish to submit this request to the Medicare Part B carrier.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Tadalafil. 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. The drug is requested to treat erectile dysfunction and/or benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). The prescriber was asked to clarify your diagnosis because it was unclear as the diagnosis was changed in the appeal request. The prescriber was also asked prior authorization coverage criteria. 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 Tadalafil 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 Tadalafil. 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 Sildenafil 20 mg. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case toconduct an independent review.Medicare law excludes certain drugs from Part D coverage. Sildenafil 20 mg is one of those excluded drugsbecause it is a drug used to treat sexual or erectile dysfunction. The record submitted by the Plan does notindicate that they provide supplemental coverage for Sildenafil 20 mg. Therefore, the Plan is not requiredto cover Sildenafil 20 mg.This decision does not address the medical necessity or appropriateness of the requested drug. It onlyestablishes that payment cannot be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Taltz. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct anindependent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor Taltz 80 mg/mL. The drug is requested to treat psoriasis. 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.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 Taltz 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 Taltz.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

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 Pennsaid 2% solution. 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 Pennsaid 2% solution. Pennsaid 2% solution is requested to treat lumbar radiculopathy. There was insufficient documentation to substantiate that the requested drug is being used to treat the stated condition(s). The prescriber was asked questions to clarify the diagnosis being treated and/or to provide documentation to support the noted diagnosis. The prescriber was also asked questions to address the Plan's coverage/exception criteria. A response from the prescriber was not received. Therefore, based on the current record, there is insufficient documentation to support an exception to the Plan's coverage criteria.A Plan must grant an exception for a drug that is not on its formulary if it determines that the requested drug is medically necessary, consistent with the prescriber's statement. Based on a review of the available documentation, our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that formulary exception criteria are not met. Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover Pennsaid 2% solution.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Testosterone 1.62% Gel PKT. 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 Testosterone 1.62% Gel PKT. Testosterone 1.62% Gel PKT is requested to treat idiopathic gonadotropin deficiency. For coverage under the prescription drug benefit, Medicare requires that the drug prescribed be used for a medically accepted indication. Our Physician Reviewer found that the Medicare-approved resources do contain citations to support the use of the requested drug for treatment of the noted condition. Therefore, the requested drug is being prescribed for a medically accepted indication. The enrollee does not satisfy the Plan's coverage criteria. You have not sufficiently addressed the Plan's coverage criteria and/or 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. 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 Testosterone 1.62% Gel PKT.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Cyclobenzaprine HCL. 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 Cyclobenzaprine HCL 10 mg tablet.The drug is requested to treat muscle spasms related to fibromyalgia, 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 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, 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 forCyclobenzaprine HCL.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 10 MEQ tablet. The drug is requested to treat uric acid nephrolithiasis. The drug is on Tier 3 of the Plan's formulary. There are no available lower tier drugs 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 Vascepa. 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 Vascepa. The drug is requested to treat the enrollee's condition. The drug is abrand on tier 4 of the Plan's formulary. There are no available lower tier drugs on the Plan's formulary totreat the enrollee's condition. Therefore, the drug is not eligible for a tiering exception. Our PhysicianReviewer'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 Vascepa.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Taltz. 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 Taltz. The drug is requested to treat psoriasis. The prescriber has not indicated (with patient specific clinical rationale) 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 Taltz.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Nexium DR. 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 Nexium DR 40 mg. Brand Nexium DR 40 mg is requested for ongoing treatment of gastroesophagealreflux disease. The Plan has indicated that generic Esomeprazole is on their formulary. You stated that theenrollee has failed several proton pump inhibitors as well as Sucralfate; however you have not indicatedthat the enrollee has tried generic Esomeprazole. You have not indicated why all alternatives required bythe Plan would likely not be as effective for the enrollee as the requested drug; and/or would likely causeadverse reaction(s) or other harm to the enrollee. Therefore, an exception to the Plan's coverage criteria isnot 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 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 Nexium DR.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Otezla. 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 Otezla 30 mg. The drug is requested to treat psoriasis. You have not indicated why all alternatives required by the Plan (Cosentyx, Enbrel, Humira, and Skyrizi) 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 Otezla.
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.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 cover Butalbital-Acetaminophen . The Plan did not grant this request. We receivedthis case to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor Butalbital - Acetaminophen 50/325. The drug is requested to treat fibromyalgia, 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 Butalbital/Acetaminophen 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 Butalbital/Acetaminophen.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.