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

You asked the Plan to cover Nulojix. 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 transplant was paid for by Medicare Part A. In this case, we requested the evidence the Part D Plan used to determine that the transplant in question was paid for by Medicare. We received a response from the Part D Plan, however there is insufficient information to show that the transplant in question was paid for by Medicare Part A. Based on the available information, it appears the requested drug may be eligible for Part D coverage. Therefore, we asked our Physician Reviewer to determine if other Medicare Part D coverage criteria are met.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the request for Nulojix.The drug is requested to treat kidney transplant rejection. The provided medical records document that the enrollee tried and failed Tacrolimus. As well, the records document that the enrollee is taking the requested drug along with Mycophenolate mofetil and corticosteroids. EBV seropositive is documented in the notes. 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 Nulojix.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Auryxia, 210 mg tablet. 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 Auryxia, 210 mg.The drug is requested to treat iron deficiency anemia associated with chronic kidney disease. The requesteddrug is in a category of vitamins and minerals excluded from coverage under Medicare Part D. Thereforethe requested drug is excluded from coverage.Medicare law excludes certain drugs from Part D coverage. Auryxia, 210 mg tablet is one of thoseexcluded drugs because it is a prescription vitamin and mineral product. The record submitted by the Plandoes not indicate that they provide supplemental coverage for Auryxia, 210 mg tablet. Therefore, the Planis not required to cover Auryxia, 210 mg tablet.This decision does not address the medical necessity or appropriateness of the requested drug. It onlyestablishes that payment cannot be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover 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. The drug is requested to treat polyneuropathy, unspecified, 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 Lidocaine 5% 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 Lidocaine 5% 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: Favorable

You asked the Plan to cover Eliquis 2.5 mg tablet, 60 tablets per 30 days. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the request for Eliquis 2.5 mg tablet, 60 tablets per 30 days. The drug is requested for anticoagulation in an enrollee with atrial fibrillation. 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. You sent a statement dated March 31, 2020 clarifying the medical history. You state that the enrollee is no longer enrolled in the pharmaceutical assistance program. You submitted documentation datedJanuary 18, 2020 from the Bristol-Myers Squibb Patient Assistance Foundation which stated We regret to inform you that your patient is not eligible to receive Eliquis for the following reason: Product covered by insurance. The Plan limits the amount of the drug to 60 tablets per 30 days. The requested quantity is within the number of doses allowed by the Plan. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that quantity limit criteria are met.Medicare rules allow a Part D Plan to manage its formulary by covering a limited quantity of certain drugs. Based on a review of the available documentation, our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that the dose requested is within the allowed quantity limit. Therefore, the Plan is required to cover the requested quantity of Eliquis 2.5 mg tablet.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Repatha Pushtronex. 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 Repatha Pushtronex. The drug is requested to treat heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. 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.However, 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 Repatha Pushtronex.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Januvia. 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 Januvia 25mg tablet. The drug is requested to treat diabetes with chronic renal failure. The drug is on Tier 3 of the Plan's formulary. There are no available (branded) 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 Januvia.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Sandostatin LAR Depot. 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 Sandostatin LAR Depot. The drug is requested to treat gastrointestinal bleed secondary to gastrointestinal arteriovenous malformation, which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use. The prescriber sent a letter dated 4/1/2020 clarifying the medical history. 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 Sandostatin LAR Depot 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 Sandostatin LAR Depot. 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 Lidocaine 2% 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 Lidocaine 2% gel.Lidocaine 2% gel is requested for ongoing use to treat vulvar itching/dyspareunia, 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 Lidocaine 2% 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 Lidocaine 2% 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 provide a tiering exception for Synthroid. 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 Synthroid. The drug is requested to treat hypothyroidism. Synthroid 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 Synthroid.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Hizentra . 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 Parts A or B of Medicare for that individual. Medicare Part B pays for the rental or purchase of DME if the equipment is used in the patient's home or in an institution that is used as a home. Payment may be made for supplies necessary for the effective use of DME, including drugs and biologicals which must be put directly into the equipment in order to achieve the therapeutic benefit of the DME. Medicare Part B local policy states that an external infusion pump is covered for administration of subcutaneous immune globulin if the subcutaneous immune globulin preparation is a pooled plasma derivative which is approved for the treatment of primary immune deficiency disease; and the patient has a diagnosis of primary immune deficiency disease.In this case, Hizentra is being administered via external infusion pump in the home, and is being used for ICD-10 diagnosis code D83.9 - Common variable immunodeficiency, unspecified. This diagnosis is eligible for coverage under Medicare Part B. Thus, Hizentra as prescribed and administered in this case appears to be eligible for Part B coverage. Drugs which are eligible for Part B coverage are excluded from Part D coverage by Medicare law. It is noted in the case file that Hizentra is also being used for ICD-10 diagnosis code D80.1 - Nonfamilial hypogammaglobulinemia, which is not a Medicare Part B covered diagnosis; however medical records provided note a diagnosis code of D83.9 which is eligible for coverage under Medicare Part B. Therefore, our decision is the Part D Plan is not required to cover HizentraThis 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 provide a tiering exception for Bystolic. 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 Bystolic. The drug is requested to treat hypertension in an enrollee with a thoracic aneurysm. Bystolic is a brand drug on Tier 3 of the Plan's formulary. There are no available lower tier brand drugs of the same type on the Plan's formulary to treat your 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 your condition. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide a tiering exception for Bystolic.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Orencia. The Plan did not grant this request. We received 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 the specialty tier are not eligible for a tiering exception. Orencia is in the specialty tier. The record indicates the Plan has chosen to exclude the specialty tier from the tiering exception process. Therefore, the Plan is not required to provide a tiering exception for Orencia.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Ipratropium-Albuterol nebulizer solution. 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 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 Ipratropium-Albuterol nebulizer solution for the management of obstructivepulmonary disease.In this case, the record shows that Ipratropium-Albuterol nebulizer solution is administered through anebulizer in the home for a diagnosis of unspecified asthma, uncomplicated (ICD-10 J45.909). There is noindication that it is not administered through a small volume nebulizer. It appears that this medication iseligible for coverage under Part B rather than Part D. Drugs which are eligible for coverage under Part Bare excluded from Part D coverage by Medicare law. Therefore, it is our decision that the Part D Plan is notrequired to cover Ipratropium-Albuterol 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 1.62% Gel. The Plan did not grant this request. We received thiscase to conduct an independent review.We asked a Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Plan was correct in denying the request forTestosterone 1.62% Gel, which is not on the Plan's formulary. Our Physician Reviewer needed additionalinformation from you to make this determination. You were asked to address whether the drugs offered bythe 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, ourPhysician 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 Testosterone 1.62% Gel.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Diazepam-Baclofen-Ketamine Compound. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.Medicare Part D does not cover drugs that are not FDA approved for both safety and effectiveness. We determined that Diazepam-Baclofen-Ketamine Compound (NDCs listed as 38779-0925-04, 62991-1013-03, and 38779-1754-07, respectively) is not FDA approved for both safety and effectiveness by checking FDA sources. Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover Diazepam-Baclofen-Ketamine Compound. 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 Coreg CR ER. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.Medicare law and Plan rules do not allow tiering exceptions for non-formulary drugs being covered through a formulary exception. The documentation in the record shows that Coreg CR ER is currently being covered for the enrollee through a formulary exception. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide a tiering exception for Coreg CR ER.