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

You asked the Plan to cover Mycophenolate Mofetil. 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 Mycophenolate Mofetil 500 mg. The drug is requested to treat interstitial lung disease not due tosystemic sclerosis, which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use. The Medicare-approved compendia donot contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for treatment of the notedcondition. Additional medical information was requested by the Part D QIC. The prescribing physician wasasked to address the Plan's prior authorization criteria and to clarify the enrollee's diagnosis. The prescriberstates that the etiology of the enrollee's interstitial lung disease is possibly due to an autoimmuneconnective tissue disease. The prescriber states that the enrollee does not have a diagnosis of systemicsclerosis related interstitial lung disease. 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 Mycophenolate Mofetil for the diagnosed condition. As aresult, the drug is not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. Assuch, it cannot be covered under the Medicare Part D benefit for this condition. An exceptions requestbased on medical necessity cannot be considered because this drug, as prescribed, does not meet thedefinition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, our decision is that the Plan is not required to providecoverage for Mycophenolate Mofetil.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 Viibryd, 20 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 Viibryd, 20 mg tablet.The drug is requested to treat bipolar II disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD),obsessive-compulsive disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which are off-label (non-FDAapproved) uses. The Medicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of therequested drug, as prescribed, for treatment of the noted conditions. Therefore, the requested drug is notbeing prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, an exceptionsrequest based on medical necessity cannot be considered because the requested drug, as prescribed, doesnot meet the definition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for coverageunder Medicare Part D for the noted conditions.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 Viibryd, 20 mg tablet 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, itcannot be covered under the Medicare Part D benefit for these conditions. 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 forViibryd, 20 mg tablet.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 Tremfya. 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. The drug is requested to treat psoriasis. The prescriber has not indicated why all alternatives required by the Plan (Skyrizi subcutaneous syringe) 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.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Cyclobenzaprine, 10 mg tablet. 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 Cyclobenzaprine, 10 mg tablet.The drug is requested to treat Chronic muscle spasms, which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use. 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 Cyclobenzaprine, 10 mg tablet for the diagnosed condition. Asa result, the drug is not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law.As such, it cannot be covered under the Medicare Part D benefit for this condition. An exceptions requestbased on medical necessity cannot be considered because this drug, as prescribed, does not meet thedefinition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, our decision is that the Plan is not required to providecoverage for Cyclobenzaprine, 10 mg tablet.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 Buprenorphine HCL, 8 mg tablet SL. 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 Buprenorphine HCL, 8 mg sublingual tablet.The drug is requested to treat opioid dependence/pain in lower back. The enrollee does not satisfy thePlan's coverage criteria. The prescriber has not sufficiently addressed the Plan's coverage criteria and/or hasnot indicated why all alternatives required by the Plan would likely not be as effective for the enrollee asthe requested drug, and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm to the enrollee. OurPhysician's opinion is that neither prior authorization nor prior authorization exception criteria are met.Medicare rules allow a Part D Plan to manage its formulary by requiring prior approval for certain drugs. APlan must grant an exception to prior approval rules if it determines that the requested drug is medicallynecessary, consistent with the prescriber's statement. Based on the available documentation, our PhysicianReviewer's opinion is that an exception to prior approval criteria is not met. Therefore, the Plan is notrequired to cover Buprenorphine HCL, 8 mg tablet SL.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Otezla. 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 Otezla. Otezla is requested for treatment of oral lichen planus, which is an off-label (non-FDAapproved) use. The Medicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of therequested drug, as prescribed, for treatment of the noted condition. Therefore, the requested drug is notbeing prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, an exceptionsrequest based on medical necessity cannot be considered because the requested drug, as prescribed, doesnot meet the definition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for coverageunder 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 Otezla for the diagnosed condition. As a result, the drug is notbeing 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 Otezla.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 Privigen. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conductan independent review.Medicare law specifically excludes coverage for any drug for which payment would be available underParts A or B of Medicare for that individual. Medicare Part B pays for services and supplies incident to theservice of a physician (or other practitioner).In this case, the record reflects that Privigen will be supplied from physician and/or office stock supply, andwill be billed as part of a physician service. Privigen is a type of drug that is not usually self-administered.As a result, the drug as administered in this case appears to be eligible for coverage under Medicare Part B.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 Privigen.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.Please contact the Plan for more information regarding coverage of Privigen under the Part B benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Gammaked. 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 Gammaked 20 g/200 ml.The drug is requested to treat non-familial hypogammaglobulinemia, 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 Gammaked 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 Gammaked. 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

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 usas required by Medicare rules because it did not make a timely decision.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 the enrollee's condition. A request for prescriber statement was sent and notreturned. The enrollee does not satisfy the Plan's coverage criteria. The prescriber has not sufficientlyaddressed the Plan's coverage criteria and/or has not indicated why all alternatives required by the Planwould likely not be as effective for the enrollee as the requested drug, and/or would likely cause adversereaction(s) or other harm to the enrollee. Our Physician's opinion is that neither prior authorization nor priorauthorization exception criteria are met.Medicare rules allow a Part D Plan to manage its formulary by requiring prior approval for certain drugs. APlan must grant an exception to prior approval rules if it determines that the requested drug is medicallynecessary, consistent with the prescriber's statement. Based on the available documentation, our PhysicianReviewer's opinion is that an exception to prior approval criteria is not met. Therefore, the Plan is notrequired to cover Lidocaine 5% patch.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Synthroid. The Plan did not grant this request. Wereceived this case to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor a tiering exception for Synthroid. Synthroid is prescribed for treatment of hypothyroidism. Synthroid isa brand drug on tier 3 of the Plan's formulary. The prescriber states that the enrollee had poor results withgeneric Levothyroxine. The Plan denied a tiering exception because they indicate that there are no lowertier brand drugs on their formulary to treat the enrollee's condition; however per their Evidence ofCoverage, Unithroid is on tier 1. Although it is indicated in the Plan's EOC that Unithroid is a generic drug,Unithroid was approved as a new drug application (NDA); therefore is a brand drug for purposes of atiering exception. The prescriber does not state why all available lower tier alternatives on the Plan'sformulary to treat the enrollee's condition (1) would not be as effective for the enrollee as the requesteddrug and/or (2) would have adverse effects for the enrollee. Therefore, an exception to these criteria is notsupported. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that tiering exception criteria are not met.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 Synthroid.
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 usas required by Medicare rules because it did not make a timely decision.You asked the Plan to cover Temozolomide . The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case toconduct an independent review.Medicare law defines those drugs that are eligible to be covered under the prescription drug benefit.Medicare law specifically excludes coverage for any drug for which payment would be available underParts A or B of Medicare for that individual.Medicare Part B coverage includes oral anti-cancer drugs that are prescribed as anti-cancerchemotherapeutic agents providing they have the same active ingredients and are used for the same indications as anti-cancer chemotherapeutic agents which would be covered if they were not selfadministered and they were furnished incident to a physician's service as drugs and biologicals. This coverage includes FDA approved prodrugs used as anti-cancer drugs. The oral anti-cancer drug must be used for the same anti-cancer chemotherapeutic indications, including unlabeled or off-label uses, as the non-self-administrable form of the drug. A claim denied for the reason that the diagnosis does not fall in the covered diagnosis section of the Policy Article, titled ICD-10 Codes that are Covered, will receive a statutory denial as non-covered, but may be covered at appeal if used for a medically accepted indication, as defined by Medicare law for oral anti-cancer chemotherapeutic agents.In this case the record shows that Temozolomide is being prescribed for a diagnosis of C71.9 (Malignant neoplasm of brain, unspecified). Medicare Part B provides coverage for oral anti-cancer drugs when used as anti-cancer chemotherapeutic agents. It appears Temozolomide may be eligible for coverage underMedicare Part B for the diagnosis provided in this case. Drugs which are eligible for Part B coverage are excluded from Part D coverage by Medicare law. Therefore, our decision is that the Part D Plan is not required to cover Temozolomide.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 Myrbetriq. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the request for a tiering exception for Myrbetriq. The drug is requested to treat treat the enrollee's condition. The drug is a brand drug on Tier 3 of the Plan's formulary. There are no available lower tier brand drugs on the Plan's formulary to treat the enrollee's condition. Therefore, the drug is not eligible for a tiering exception. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that tiering exception criteria are not met.Medicare rules 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. Myrbetriq is a Tier 3 brand drug. The lower cost-sharing tier(s) only contain(s) generic alternative drugs. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide a tiering exception for Myrbetriq.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

You asked the Plan to cover Calcium Acetate 667 mg tablet. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.The Plan denied the request for Calcium Acetate 667 mg tablet due to Calcium Acetate 667 mg tablet being an over the counter product. A representative from MAXIMUS Federal requested clarification from the Plan to verify if the enrollee already purchased Calcium Acetate 667 mg tablet and/or if a specific NDC (national drug code) was being requested. There is no indication a Part D excluded NDC was purchased or required. The Plan provided the NDC 71321080320 which is a Part D eligible NDC. Medicare rules allow a Part D Plan to manage its formulary by requiring prior authorization, step therapy or quantity limits. Calcium Acetate is on the Plan's formulary and is not subject to any of these restrictions. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is required to cover Calcium Acetate. Please ensure a Part D eligible NDC is being run at the pharmacy.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Eliquis. The Plan did not grant this request. Wereceived this case to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor a tiering exception for Eliquis. The drug is requested to treat the enrollee's condition. The drug is abrand drug on Tier 3 of the Plan's formulary. There are no available lower tier drugs on the Plan'sformulary to treat the enrollee's condition. Therefore, the drug is not eligible for a tiering exception. OurPhysician Reviewer's opinion is that tiering exception criteria are not met.Medicare rules permit a Plan to grant an exception to its tiering structure so long as there is a drug of thesame type (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 Eliquis.