Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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 the enrollee's condition. 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.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Oxycodone 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 Oxycodone ER. The drug is requested to treat chronic pain due to cancer. You have not indicated whyall 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 thePlan's coverage criteria is not supported. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that formulary exceptioncriteria are not met.A Plan must grant an exception for a drug that is not on its formulary if it determines that the requesteddrug is medically necessary, consistent with the prescriber's statement. Based on a review of the availabledocumentation, our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that formulary exception criteria are not met.Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover Oxycodone ER.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Tretinoin 0.05% Cream and Selegiline 5 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 requestfor a tiering exception for Tretinoin, 0.05% Cream.The drug is requested to treat acne. Tretinoin 0.05% Cream is a generic drug on tier 3 of the Plan'sformulary. There are no available lower tier generic drugs of the same type 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.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor a tiering exception for Selegiline, 5 mg.The drug is requested to treat depression. Selegiline, 5 mg is a generic drug on Tier 3 of the Plan'sformulary. In a letter dated 6/10/2020, the prescriber states the enrollee reports he tried Prozac, Zoloft, andWellbutrin and experienced adverse effects. In a letter dated 6/11/2020, the prescriber also states theenrollee tried phenelzine at the beginning of May 2020 for four weeks but had adverse effects. Theprescriber does not state why all available lower tier alternatives on the Plan's formulary to treat theenrollee's condition (1) would not be as effective for the enrollee as the requested drug and/or (2) wouldhave adverse effects for the enrollee. Therefore, an exception to these criteria is not supported. 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 (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 Tretinoin 0.05%Cream.Medicare rules require a Plan to grant an exception to its tiering structure whenever it determines that thehigher cost-sharing tiered drug for treatment of the enrollee's condition is medically necessary consistentwith the prescriber's statement. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that tiering exception criteria are notmet. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide a tiering exception for Selegiline, 5 mgcapsule.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Ziprasidone HCL, 40 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 Ziprasidone HCL, 40 mg capsule.The drug is requested to treat autistic disorder, 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 Ziprasidone HCL, 40 mg capsule 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 Ziprasidone HCL, 40 mg capsule. 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: Favorable

You asked the Plan to cover Dronabinol 5 mg as prescribed. 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 Dronabinol 5 mg capsule.The drug is requested to treat anorexia and failure to thrive in an enrollee with HIV disease. The prescriberclarified the diagnoses in the request for reconsideration dated 6/17/2020. The enrollee satisfies the Plan'scoverage criteria.Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that prior authorization criteria are met.Medicare rules allow a Part D Plan to manage its formulary by requiring prior approval for certain drugs.Based on the available documentation, our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that prior approval criteria aremet. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is required to cover Dronabinol.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Fentanyl 25 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 Fentanyl 25 mcg/hr patch.The drug is requested to treat degeneration of lumbar intervertebral disc. The enrollee does not satisfy the Plan's coverage criteria. The prescriber has not sufficiently addressed the Plan's coverage criteria (the provided medical records do not document that non-opioid therapies have been optimized and are being used in conjunction with opioid therapy) 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 Fentanyl 25 mcg/hr patch.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Kerydin 5%. 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 Kerydin 5% solution.The drug is requested to treat onychomycosis due to dermatophyte of the toenails. The prescriber states the enrollee's lunula and matrix are involved. 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 Kerydin.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Oxycodone HCL ER (Oxycontin ER). 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 Oxycodone HCL ER 40 mg (Oxycontin ER). The drug is requested to treat chronic pain. You have notindicated why all alternatives required by the Plan would likely not be as effective for the enrollee as therequested drug; and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm to the enrollee. Therefore, anexception 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 Oxycodone HCL ER (Oxycontin ER).
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Xarelto 20 mg. 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 if thelower tiers on the formulary only contain generic alternative drugs. Xarelto is a Tier 3 brand drug. Thelower cost-sharing tiers only contain generic alternative drugs. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is notrequired to provide a tiering exception for Xarelto.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Ondansetron 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 Ondansetron HCL 4 mg. The drug is requested to treat gastrointestinal distress 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 Ondansetron 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 Ondansetron 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 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 60 mg/ml. The drug is requested to treat osteoporosis. Prolia 60 mg/ml is a biologic drug on Tier 4 of the Plan's formulary. There are no available lower tier biologic 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 biologic 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 cover Ipratropium-Albuterol. 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/Ipratropium. The drug is requested to treat pulmonary fibrosis, unspecified, cough, and shortness of breath, 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 Ipratropium-Albuterol 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 Ipratropium-Albuterol. 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 Cinacalcet HCL. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.Medicare law requires that all drugs and biologicals used in the treatment of ESRD or AKI be included in the ESRD PPS payment bundle, regardless of the reason why the drug is being prescribed and regardless of whether or not the drug is furnished by a dialysis facility. Drugs that are always considered ESRD and AKI-related include access management drugs, anemia management drugs, anti-infectives to treat site access infection, bone and mineral metabolism drugs and cellular management drugs.In this case, Cinacalcet HCL is being prescribed to an enrollee who has ESRD or AKI and is on dialysis. Cinacalcet HCL is a class of medication which is always considered ESRD or AKI-related for purposes of the Part B ESRD payment bundle. Thus, the requested drug is eligible for coverage under the Part B ESRD payment bundle, regardless of the reason why the drug is being prescribed and regardless of whether or not the drug is being furnished by a dialysis facility. Drugs which are eligible for Part B coverage are excluded from Part D coverage by Medicare law. Therefore, our decision is the Part D Plan is not required to cover Cinacalcet HCL. This decision does not concern the medical necessity or appropriateness of the requested drug. It only establishes 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 Epidiolex. 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 Epidiolex 100 mg sol. The drug is requested to treat localization-related (focal) (partial) symptomaticepilepsy and epileptic syndromes with complex partial seizures intractable and with status epilepticusrelated to traumatic brain injury, which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use. The Medicare-approvedcompendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for treatmentof the noted condition. Therefore, the requested drug is not being prescribed for a medically acceptedindication as defined by Medicare law. As such, an exceptions request based on medical necessity cannotbe considered because the requested drug, as prescribed, does not meet the definition of a Medicare Part Ddrug. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D for the notedcondition.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 Epidiolex for the diagnosed condition. As a result, the drug isnot being 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 Epidiolex.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 Azathioprine. 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 Azathioprine 50 mg. The drug is requested for the prophylaxis of lung transplant rejection, which is anoff-label (non-FDA approved) use. The Medicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations tosupport the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for treatment of the noted condition. Therefore, therequested drug is not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. Assuch, an exceptions 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 Azathioprine for the diagnosed condition. As a result, the drugis not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, it cannotbe covered under the Medicare Part D benefit for this condition. An exceptions request based on medicalnecessity cannot be considered because this drug, as prescribed, does not meet the definition of a MedicarePart D drug. Therefore, our decision is that the Plan is not required to provide coverage for Azathioprine.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.