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

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Myrbetriq 25 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 a tiering exception for Myrbetriq 25 mg. The drug is requested to treat urinary urgency and frequency. The drug is 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 drug is not eligible for a tiering exception. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that tiering exception criteria are not met.Medicare rules permit a Plan to grant an exception to its tiering structure so long as there is a drug of the same type (such as brand or biologic drugs when considering an exception for a brand or biologic drug) in a lower cost-sharing tier approved for treating the same condition that the higher cost-sharing tiered drug is being used to treat. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that tiering exception criteria are not met because there are no lower cost-sharing tiered drugs of the same type for treating the enrollee's condition. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide a tiering exception for Myrbetriq.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Zaleplon. 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 Zaleplon. The drug is requested for the long-term treatment of insomnia, 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 Zaleplon 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 Zaleplon. 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 Albuterol Sulfate HFA. 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 Albuterol Sulfate HFA. The drug is requested to treat the enrollee's condition. A request for prescriber statement was sent and returned. The prescriber indicates an alternative drug has been prescribed. The prescriber has not indicated why all alternatives required by the Plan would likely not be as effective for the enrollee as the requested drug; and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm to the enrollee. Therefore, an exception to the Plan's coverage criteria is not supported. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that formulary exception criteria are not met.A Plan must grant an exception for a drug that is not on its formulary if it determines that the requested drug is medically necessary, consistent with the prescriber's statement. Based on a review of the available documentation, our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that formulary exception criteria are not met. Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover Albuterol Sulfate HFA.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Lipitor. 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 Lipitor. The drug is requested to treat the enrollee's condition. The drug is abrand drug on tier 4 of the Plan's formulary. There are no available lower tier brand drugs on the Plan'sformulary to treat the enrollee's condition. Therefore, the drug is not eligible for a tiering exception. OurPhysician Reviewer's opinion is that tiering exception criteria are not met.Medicare rules permit a Plan to grant an exception to its tiering structure so long as there is a drug of thesame type 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 Lipitor.
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 Potassium Chloride 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 Potassium Chloride ER. Potassium Chloride ER is requested to treat an unknown diagnosis. The prescriber was asked to state the enrollee's diagnosis, because there was no prescriber statement of the enrollee's diagnosis in the case file. The prescriber was also asked to address medical necessity for the requested drug. 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, an exceptions request based on medical necessity cannot be considered because it cannot be confirmed that the drug meets the definition of a Medicare Part D drug.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 needed additional information from the prescriber to determine whether the enrollee is using Potassium Chloride ER for an FDA-approved use, or a use listed in the Medicare-approved compendia. The requested information was not received. As a result, we could not confirm that the drug is being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, it cannot be covered under the Medicare Part D benefit. An exceptions request based on medical necessity cannot be considered because it cannot be confirmed that the drug meets the definition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, our decision is that the Plan is not required to provide coverage for Potassium Chloride ER. 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 Trigels-F Forte. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.Medicare Part D does not cover non-prescription drugs. We checked FDA approved sources for the drug's classification or determined from other available resources that the drug is a non-prescription or OTC drug. Therefore, Trigels-F Forte is not eligible for Part D coverage, and the Plan is not required to cover it under the Part D benefit. 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 provide a tiering exception for Prolia. 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 Prolia. The drug is requested to treat the enrollee's condition. The drug is a brand drug on tier 4 of the Plan's formulary. There are no available lower tier biologic brand 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 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 Prolia.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Tymlos. The Plan did not grant this request. Wereceived this case to conduct an independent review.If a Plan maintains a specialty tier, the Plan may design its exception process so that drugs placed in thespecialty tier are not eligible for a tiering exception. Tymlos is in the specialty tier. The record indicates thePlan has chosen to exclude the specialty tier from the tiering exception process. Therefore, the Plan is notrequired to provide a tiering exception for Tymlos.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Temazepam. 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 Temazepam. Temazepam is requested to treat restless legs syndrome, chronic anxiety, and chronic insomnia. There was insufficient documentation to substantiate that the requested drug is being used to treat the stated conditions. 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.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 needed additional information from the prescriber to determine whether the enrollee is using Temazepam for an FDA-approved use, or a use listed in the Medicare-approved compendia. The requested information was not received. As a result, we could not confirm that the drug is being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, it cannot be covered under the Medicare Part D benefit. An exceptions request based on medical necessity cannot be considered because it cannot be confirmed that the drug meets the definition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, our decision is that the Plan is not required to provide coverage for Temazepam.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 Stelara. 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 Stelara. The drug is requested to treat psoriasis. The enrollee does not satisfy the Plan's coveragecriteria. You have not sufficiently addressed the Plan's coverage criteria and/or have not indicated why allalternatives required by the Plan (with patient specific rationale) 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.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. 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 Stelara.
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 degenerative disc disease, low back pain, and osteoarthritis of knees, 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 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 Testosterone 1.62% Gel Pump. 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 Testosterone 1.62% Gel Pump. The drug is requested to treat idiopathic hypogonadism, 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 Testosterone 1.62% Gel Pump for the diagnosed condition. Asa 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 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 Testosterone 1.62% Gel Pump.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 Kombiglyze XR. 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 Kombiglyze XR. The drug is requested to treat Type 2 diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia. You havenot indicated why all alternatives required by the Plan would likely not be as effective for the enrollee asthe 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 thatformulary 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 Kombiglyze XR.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Symbicort. 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. Symbicort 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 Symbicort.Please note: Your complaint regarding the price more than doubling for Symbicort from 2019 to 2020 is a grievance. A grievance is any complaint or dispute, other than one that involves a coverage determination or at-risk determination, expressing dissatisfaction with any aspect of the operations, activities, or behavior of a Part D plan. Grievance procedures are separate and distinct from appeal procedures. Medicare defines a coverage determination as (1) a decision not to provide or pay for a Part D drug, (2) failure to provide a coverage determination in a timely manner, when a delay would adversely affect the health of the enrollee, (3) a decision concerning an exceptions request, or (4) a decision on the amount of cost-sharing for a drug. (42 CFR ??423.560, 423.564(b), 423.566(b)).Since your complaint involves a grievance, the Part D Plan must review this complaint under the Plan's grievance procedures. Each Part D Plan must provide meaningful procedures for timely hearing and resolving grievances between enrollees and the Part D Plan (or any other entity or individual through whom the Part D Plan provides covered benefits under any Part D Plan it offers). At this time, you should contactthe Plan for information on how to proceed with having this complaint reviewed under the Plan's grievance procedures. 42 CFR Section 423.564(a).
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

You asked the Plan to provide reimbursement for the Adacel vaccine received October 8, 2019. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.The Plan covers prescriptions filled at an out-of-network pharmacy only in certain limited circumstances. In this case, you received the Adacel vaccine from the clinic on October 8, 2019. You requested reimbursement from the Part D Plan. The Plan did not process the request. Your request included a statement from the clinic. Proof of payment for the vaccine has been established. The Adacel vaccine is a Part D eligible vaccine. The Plan's out-of-network coverage rules were followed. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is required to provide reimbursement for the Adacel vaccine received October 8, 2019.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Neupro 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 a tiering exception for Neupro Patch. The drug is requested to treat restless legs syndrome. 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 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 Neupro Patch.