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

You asked the Plan to cover Tremfya 100 mg/mL. 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 Tremfya 100 mg/mL.The drug is requested to treat psoriasis. 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 Tremfya 100 mg/mL.Please note: the request for a tiering exception (lower copayment) for Tremfya 100 mg/mL was not reviewed. We cannot consider a tiering exception for a drug for which the Part D Plan is unable to provide coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Dronabinol. 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 Dronabinol 10 mg capsule. The drug is requested to treat nausea and vomiting associated withtrigeminal nerve pain/atypical facial pain and chronic pain, which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use.The Medicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, asprescribed, for treatment of the noted condition. Therefore, the requested drug is not being prescribed for amedically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, an exceptions request based onmedical necessity cannot be considered because the requested drug, as prescribed, does not meet thedefinition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for coverage underMedicare Part D for the noted condition.For coverage under Part D, Medicare requires that the drug must be prescribed for a medically acceptedindication. A medically accepted indication means a use that is approved by the FDA or a use that issupported by one or more citations in Medicare approved compendia.Our Physician Reviewer reviewed this file and determined that there are no citations in the Medicareapproved compendia that support the use of Dronabinol 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 Dronabinol.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 Dronabinol. 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 Dronabinol. The drug is requested to treat anorexia in an enrollee with dementia with behavioral disturbance and major depressive disorder with psychotic symptoms, 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 Dronabinol 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 Dronabinol. 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 Stivarga 40 mg, #63 per 28 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 Stivarga 40 mg; 63/28.Stivarga is requested to treat metastatic colon cancer. The patient is 83 years old with comorbidities and with metastatic colon cancer involving her peritoneum. Her cancer has a KRAS mutation. The patient with comorbidities and with metastatic colon cancer involving her peritoneum. Her cancer has a KRAS mutation. The patient did not receive Avastin or similar anti-VEGF due to age and comorbidities. The patient has progression of cancer. The prescriber requests Stivarga for treatment.Per the FDA website, Stivarga is indicated for the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) who have been previously treated with fluoropyrimidine-, Oxaliplatin- and Irinotecan-based chemotherapy, an anti-VEGF therapy, and, if RAS wild-type, an anti-EGFR therapy. The patient has had 5FU, a fluoropyrimidine and Oxaliplatin and Irinotecan. The patient's tumor is not RAS wild-type. The prescriber explained why anti-VEGF agents are not acceptable for treatment. 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 does not satisfy the Plan's coverage criteria. The prescriber has indicated why all alternatives required by the Plan would likely not be as effective as the requested drug for the enrollee, and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm to the enrollee. Therefore, an exception to the Plan's coverage criteria is medically necessary.Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that 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 met. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is required to cover Stivarga.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

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Jardiance, 25 mg tablet . 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. Jardiance, 25 mg tablet is a Tier 3 brand [biologic] 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 Jardiance, 25 mg tablet.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Procrit 10,000 units/mL. 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 10,000 units/mL.The drug is requested to treat anemia in chronic kidney disease. 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 Procrit 10,000 units/mL.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Reyvow. 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 Reyvow 100 mg tablet.The drug is requested to treat migraine headache. The prescriber has not indicated why all alternativesrequired by the Plan (Rizatriptan and Naratriptan tablet) 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 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 Reyvow.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Trintellix. 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 Trintellix. The drug is requested to treat Major depressive disorder recurrent. 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 Trintellix.
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 Gabapentin. 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 Gabapentin 300 mg capsule. The drug is requested to treat spondylosis of lumbar region without myelopathy or radiculopathy, 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 Gabapentin 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 Gabapentin. 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 5% Patch. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this caseto conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor Lidocaine 5% Patch. The drug is requested to treat M25.512 Pain in left shoulder and lumbardegenerative disc disease, which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use. Medical records were provided which documented cervical degenerative disc disease, lumbarspondylosis, lumbar degenerative disc disease and intercostal neuropathy. These records document that theenrollee was being prescribed the requested drug for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease. TheMedicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, asprescribed, for treatment of the noted condition. Therefore, the requested drug is not being prescribed for amedically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, an exceptions request based onmedical necessity cannot be considered because the requested drug, as prescribed, does not meet thedefinition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for coverage underMedicare Part D for the noted condition.For coverage under Part D, Medicare requires that the drug must be prescribed for a medically acceptedindication. A medically accepted indication means a use that is approved by the FDA or a use that issupported by one or more citations in Medicare approved compendia.Our Physician Reviewer reviewed this file and determined that there are no citations in the Medicareapproved compendia that support the use of 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, itcannot be covered under the Medicare Part D benefit for this condition. An exceptions request based onmedical necessity cannot be considered because this drug, as prescribed, does not meet the definition of aMedicare Part D drug. Therefore, our decision is that the Plan is not required to provide coverage forLidocaine 5% Patch.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 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 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 nebulizer solution for the management of obstructive pulmonary disease. In this case, the record shows that Albuterol nebulizer solution is administered through a nebulizer in the home for a diagnosis of asthma, pneumonia and Covid-19. 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 nebulizer solution. 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 provide a tiering exception for Testosterone Cypionate. 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 Testosterone Cypionate 200 mg/ml inj solution. The drug is requested to treat the enrollee's condition. The drug is a generic drug on tier 3 of the Plan's formulary. There are no available 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 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 Testosterone Cypionate.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Modafinil, 200 mg tablet. 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 Modafinil, 200 mg.The drug is requested to treat Excessive somnolence - Narcolepsy. 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 Modafinil, 200 mg tablet.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Ingrezza. 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 Ingrezza. The drug is requested to treat tardive dyskinesia. The enrollee does not satisfy the Plan's coverage criteria (the prescriber reports that the enrollee has not had an inadequate response, intolerable adverse effect or contraindication to Deutetrabenazine). 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 Ingrezza.