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

You asked the Plan to cover Lyrica 150 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 Lyrica 150 mg capsule. The drug is requested to treat peripheral neuropathy and fibromyalgia. 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 (fibromyalgia). Therefore, the requested drug is being prescribed for a medically accepted indication. The prescriber has not indicated why all alternatives required by the Plan (including generic Pregabalin) 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 Lyrica.Please note: the review above addresses brand Lyrica 150 mg capsule only. The Plan's documentation shows that generic Pregabalin 150 mg capsule is on formulary without restriction. You may wish to contact the Plan regarding coverage of generic Pregabalin 150 mg capsule. Or, there is currently no indication that generic Pregabalin 150 mg capsule would not be covered if presented upon a valid script, at an in-network pharmacy.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Ajovy. 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 Ajovy 225 mg/1.5 mL.The drug is requested for migraine-headache prophylaxis. 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 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 Reviewer'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 Ajovy.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Azathioprine, 50 mg tablet. 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 Azathioprine, 50 mg tablet.The drug is requested to treat hypersensitivity pneumonitis, 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, asprescribed, for treatment of the noted condition. 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 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 Azathioprine, 50 mg tablet 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 Azathioprine, 50 mg tablet.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 Xarelto. 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 Xarelto 20 mg. The drug is requested to treat atrial fibrillation. The drug is ontier 3 of the Plan's formulary. There are no available lower tier brand drugs on the Plan's formulary to treatthe enrollee's condition. Therefore, the drug is not eligible for a tiering exception. Our Physician Reviewer'sopinion 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 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 Xarelto.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Diclofenac 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 1.3% patch.The drug is requested to treat chronic pain associated with wedge compression fracture in an enrollee with a history of C-spine fusion, cervical spondylosis and rotator cuff tear of the left shoulder, which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use. Medical records from date of service 3/25/2020 were provided which support these diagnoses. 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 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 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

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 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 to treat low back pain and osteoarthritis. 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. The following citation in the comparative section of DrugDex, a Medicare approved compendium, supports the use of the requested drug for the enrollee's condition: Opioids did not significantly improve pain-related function compared with nonopioids (3.4 vs 3.3 points on the 11-point Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) interference scale), nonopioids significantly improved pain intensity (mean BPI, 4 vs 3.5), and opioids were associated with significantly more adverse effects (mean symptoms, 1.8 vs 0.9) over 12 months in a randomized trial in patients with either chronic back (65%) or hip or knee osteoarthritis (35%) pain despite analgesic use (N=240). In addition, the reference cited in DrugDex states: Among patients with chronic back pain or hip or knee osteoarthritis pain, treatment with opioids compared with nonopioid medications did not result in significantly better pain related function over 12 months. Nonopioid treatment was associated with significantly better pain intensity. Therefore, the requested drug is being prescribed for a medically accepted indication.Additional medical information was requested by the Part D QIC. You were asked to address the Plan's prior authorization criteria. A response from you was not received. 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 Lidocaine 5% patch.
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. The drug is requested to treat plaque psoriasis. 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 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 Otezla.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Budesonide nebulizer solution. The Plan did not grant this request. Wereceived this case 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 nebulizer solution for the management of obstructive pulmonarydisease.In this case, the record shows that Budesonide nebulizer solution is administered through a nebulizer in thehome for a diagnosis of ICD-10 J45.909 (Unspecified asthma, uncomplicated). The Reconsideration appealrequest indicates Budesonide will be administered nasally and not via a nebulizer. However, the medicalrecords provided reflect that Budesonide will be administered via a nebulizer. There is no indication that itis not administered through a small volume nebulizer. It appears that this medication is eligible forcoverage under Part B rather than Part D. Drugs which are eligible for coverage under Part B are excludedfrom Part D coverage by Medicare law. Therefore, it is our decision that the Part D Plan is not required tocover Budesonide nebulizer solution.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 Testosterone Cypionate. 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 Testosterone Cypionate. The drug is requested to treat testicular hypofunction. The enrollee does notsatisfy the Plan's coverage criteria. You have not sufficiently addressed the Plan's coverage criteria and/orhave not indicated why all alternatives required by the Plan would likely not be as effective for the enrolleeas the requested drug, and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm to the enrollee. OurPhysician'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. APlan must grant an exception to prior approval rules if it determines that the requested drug is medicallynecessary, consistent with the prescriber's statement. Based on the available documentation, our PhysicianReviewer's opinion is that an exception to prior approval criteria is not met. Therefore, the Plan is notrequired to cover Testosterone Cypionate.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Mycophenolate Mofetil, 500 mg tablet. 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 Mycophenolate Mofetil, 500 mg.The drug is requested to treat pulmonary fibrosis and nonspecific interstitial pneumonia, which is an offlabel(non-FDA approved) use. The Medicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations to supportthe use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for treatment of the noted condition. Therefore, the requesteddrug is 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 Mycophenolate Mofetil, 500 mg tablet for the diagnosedcondition. As a result, the drug is not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined byMedicare law. As such, it cannot be covered under the Medicare Part D benefit for this condition. Anexceptions request based on medical necessity cannot be considered because this drug, as prescribed, doesnot meet the definition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, our decision is that the Plan is not required toprovide coverage for Mycophenolate Mofetil, 500 mg tablet.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 Gralise 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 Gralise ER. The drug is requested to treat Parkinson's disease and neuropathy, which are off-label (non-FDA approved) uses. The Medicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use ofthe requested drug, as prescribed, for treatment of the noted conditions. Therefore, the requested drug is notbeing prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, an exceptionsrequest based on medical necessity cannot be considered because the requested drug, as prescribed, doesnot meet the definition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for coverageunder Medicare Part D for the noted conditions.For coverage under Part D, Medicare requires that the drug must be prescribed for a medically acceptedindication. A medically accepted indication means a use that is approved by the FDA or a use that issupported by one or more citations in Medicare approved compendia.Our Physician Reviewer reviewed this file and determined that there are no citations in the Medicareapproved compendia that support the use of Gralise ER for the diagnosed conditions. 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 these conditions. 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 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 cover Risedronate Sodium, 150 mg tablet. 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 Risedronate Sodium, 150 mg tablet.The drug is requested to treat osteoporosis. The prescriber has 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 Risedronate Sodium, 150 mg tablet.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

You asked the Plan to cover Linzess 72 mcg capsule. The Plan did not grant this request. We received thiscase to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Plan was correct in denying the request forLinzess 72 mcg capsule.Linzess 72 mcg capsule is requested to treat Idiopathic constipation. In the Reconsideration appeal datedApril 8, 2020 you stated that the enrollee tried and failed Trulance. Therefore, the enrollee tried allalternatives required by the Plan. All resulted in an unacceptable side effect. Our Physician Reviewer'sopinion is that step therapy criteria are met.Medicare rules allow a Part D Plan to manage its formulary by requiring step therapy for certain drugs. APlan must grant an exception to step therapy rules if it determines that the requested drug is medicallynecessary, consistent with the prescriber's statement. Based on a review of the available documentation,our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that step therapy criteria are met. Therefore, the Plan is required tocover Linzess 72 mcg capsule.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Dexilant DR. 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 Dexilant DR. The drug is requested to treat Gastroesophageal reflux disease. The drug is a brand drug on Tier 4 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 Dexilant DR.