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

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 Epclusa 400-100 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 Epclusa 400-100 mg tablet. The drug is requested to treat chronic hepatitis C virus infection. 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 satisfies the Plan's coverage 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 are met. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is required to cover Epclusa 400-100 mg. Please note that if the Plan does not agree with our decision, they can ask us to open a case again. We only open a case again if we believe there was a mistake or if there is new information to review. The health plan has to show us the mistake and/or send us the new information. This does not happen often. If we decide to open the case again, we will notify you in writing that the case is being reviewed again and the outcome of the reopening.
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 Envarsus XR. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.   Medicare law specifically excludes coverage for any drug under the Part D program for which payment would be available under Parts A or B of Medicare for that individual. Coverage is available under Medicare Part B for prescription drugs used in immunosuppressive therapy furnished to a beneficiary who has received an organ transplant, provided the beneficiary receiving the drug was enrolled in Medicare Part A at the time of the organ transplant.  We requested additional medical information to determine if criteria for Medicare Part D have been met. We requested the date of the enrollee?s organ transplant. A response to our request was not received in the timeframe required for review of this case. There is insufficient information to show that this drug is not eligible for Medicare Part B coverage. As a result, the record does not establish that Envarsus XR is a Part D drug in this case. Therefore, it is our decision that the Part D Plan is not required to cover Envarsus XR.  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.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

 You asked the Plan to cover Xeljanz. 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 Xeljanz 5 mg tablet.   The drug is requested to treat vitiligo, 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 Xeljanz 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 Xeljanz.  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 Alphagan P 0.1% drop 45 ml per 90 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 Part D Plan was correct in denying the request for Alphagan P 0.1% ophthalmic drop, 1 drop in each eye three times per day (45 ml/90 days).   The drug is requested to treat bilateral primary open-angle glaucoma. The Plan limits the amount of the drug to 35 ml/90 days. The prescriber has indicated that the number of doses of the requested drug allowed by the plan would likely be ineffective in treating the enrollee's condition, and/or would likely cause harm to the enrollee. Therefore, an exception to the Plan's coverage criteria is medically necessary. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that quantity limit exception criteria are met.  Medicare rules allow a Part D Plan to manage its formulary by covering a limited quantity of certain drugs. A Plan must grant an exception if it determines that the requested dosage is medically reasonable and 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 the quantity limit criteria is met. Therefore, the Plan is required to cover the requested quantity of Alphagan P 0.1% drop 45 ml per 90 days. Please note that if the Plan does not agree with our decision, they can ask us to open a case again. We only open a case again if we believe there was a mistake or if there is new information to review. The health plan has to show us the mistake and/or send us the new information. This does not happen often. If we decide to open the case again, we will notify you in writing that the case is being reviewed again and the outcome of the reopening.
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 provide a tiering exception for Entresto. 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 Entresto 24-26 mg tablet.   The drug is requested to treat chronic systolic heart failure. The drug is on tier three of the Plan's formulary. There are no available (branded, equivalent) 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 Entresto.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

 You asked the Plan to cover Sirturo. 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 Sirturo 100 mg tablet.   The drug is requested to treat pulmonary and extra-pulmonary tuberculosis. 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 Sirturo.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

 You asked the Plan to cover Saphris. 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 Saphris 5 mg.   The drug is requested to treat schizoaffective disorder depressive-type, 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 Saphris 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 Saphris.  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 Xifaxan. 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 Xifaxan 550 mg.   The drug is requested for the ongoing treatment of unspecified cirrhosis of the liver (ICD-10 K74.60), which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use. Additional medical information was requested by the Part D QIC. The prescribing physician was asked to address the enrollee's diagnosis and submit additional medical records to support the diagnosis. The prescriber statement was returned. The prescriber statement was returned along with medical records from 2013. There is no documentation of history of hepatic encephalopathy. The prescriber's response was vague to whether the requested drug is being prescribed to reduce the risk of overt hepatic encephalpathy recurrence. 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 Xifaxan 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 Xifaxan.  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 Cytomel. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.   We asked a Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Plan was correct in denying the request for Cytomel, which is not on the Plan?s formulary. Our Physician Reviewer needed additional information from the prescriber to make this determination. The prescriber was asked to address whether the drugs offered by the Plan would: (1) not be as effective as the requested non-formulary drug; and/or (2) have adverse effects. The requested information was not received. Based on a review of the available documentation, our Physician Reviewer?s opinion is that formulary exception criteria are not met.  A Plan must grant an exception for a drug that is not on its formulary if it determines that the requested drug is medically necessary, consistent with the prescriber's statement. Based on a review of the available documentation, our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that formulary exception criteria are not met. Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover Cytomel.
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 Procrit. 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 Procrit 20,000 units/mL. Procrit 20,000 units/mL is requested to treat anemia in chronic kidney disease, in an enrollee not on dialysis. Procrit is not on the Plan's formulary. 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 Procrit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Nexium. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.   We asked a Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Plan was correct in denying the request for Nexium, which is not on the Plan's formulary. Our Physician Reviewer needed additional information from the prescriber to make this determination. The prescriber was asked to address whether the drugs offered by the Plan would: (1) not be as effective as the requested non-formulary drug; and/or (2) have adverse effects. The requested information was not received. Based on a review of the available documentation, our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that formulary exception criteria are not met.  A Plan must grant an exception for a drug that is not on its formulary if it determines that the requested drug is medically necessary, consistent with the prescriber's statement. Based on a review of the available documentation, our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that formulary exception criteria are not met. Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover Nexium.
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 Albuterol Sulfate neb sol. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.   Medicare law specifically excludes coverage for any drug for which payment would be available under Part A or Part B of Medicare for that individual. Medicare Part B may pay for supplies necessary for the effective use of durable medical equipment, including drugs and biologicals which must be put directly into the equipment in order to achieve the therapeutic benefit of the durable medical equipment. Medicare Part B local policy states that a small volume nebulizer and related compressor are covered when medically necessary to administer Albuterol Sulfate neb sol for the management of obstructive pulmonary disease.  In this case, the record shows that Albuterol Sulfate neb sol is administered through a nebulizer in the home for a diagnosis of COPD. There is no indication that it is not administered through a small volume nebulizer. It appears that this medication is eligible for coverage under Part B rather than Part D. Drugs which are eligible for coverage under Part B are excluded from Part D coverage by Medicare law. Therefore, it is our decision that the Part D Plan is not required to cover Albuterol Sulfate neb sol.  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 Votrient. 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 Votrient 200 mg; 90/30.   The drug is requested to treat Merkel cell cancer, which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use.  The enrollee is a 71 year old woman with metastatic Merkel cell cancer involving her left wrist, nodes and skin of the arm.  She has been treated with surgery, unspecified chemotherapy, Pembrolizumab, T-VEC, and radiation. The prescriber requests Votrient to treat her. Journal citations were submitted in support of the request and were reviewed.   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. There was no peer-reviewed, clinically relevant, medical literature from an approved journal submitted to support this appeal. 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. For Part D drugs used in an anticancer chemotherapeutic regimen, 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 or peer-reviewed medical literature in CMS-approved journals or publications.   Our Physician Reviewer reviewed this file and determined that there are no citations in the Medicare approved compendia and there was no peer-reviewed literature from an approved journal submitted to support the use of Votrient 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 Votrient.  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.