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

You asked the Plan to cover Febuxostat. 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 Febuxostat 80 mg tablet.The drug is requested to treat gout. Febuxostat 80 mg tablet is not on the Plan's formulary. The prescriberhas not indicated why all alternatives required by the Plan would likely not be as effective for the enrolleeas 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 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 Febuxostat.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Hetlioz, 20 mg capsule. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the request for Hetlioz, 20 mg.The drug is requested to treat the enrollee's condition. A request for prescriber statement was sent and not returned. 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 Hetlioz, 20 mg capsule.
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 provide a tiering exception for Prednisolone Acetate 1%. The Plan did not grant thisrequest. We received this case to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor a tiering exception for Prednisolone Acetate 1%. Prednisolone Acetate 1% ophthalmic suspension isrequested to treat the enrollee's condition. Prednisolone Acetate 1% is on tier 4 of the Plan's formulary.Additional information was requested from the prescribing physician; however, no additional informationwas received. The prescriber does not state why all available lower tier alternatives on the Plan's formularyto treat the enrollee's condition (1) would not be as effective for the enrollee as the requested drug and/or(2) would have adverse effects for the enrollee. Therefore, an exception to these criteria is not supported.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 PrednisoloneAcetate 1%.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Prolia. 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 Prolia. The drug is requested to treat osteoporosis. The drug is on Tier 4 of thePlan's formulary. There are no available lower tier biologic drugs on the Plan's formulary to treat theenrollee's condition. Therefore, the drug is not eligible for a tiering exception. Our Physician Reviewer'sopinion 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 Prolia.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Toviaz, 8 mg tablet. 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 Toviaz, 8 mg tablet 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 Toviaz, 8 mg tablet.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

You asked the Plan to cover Oxycontin ER. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case toconduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor Oxycontin ER 40 mg. The drug is requested to treat cervicalgia/low back pain. The prescriber hasindicated why all alternatives required by the Plan would likely not be as effective as the requested drug forthe enrollee, and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm to the enrollee. On 03/09/2020 theprescriber sent additional information reporting a history of allergic reaction to formulary alternativeXtampza. Therefore, an exception to the Plan's coverage criteria is medically necessary. Our PhysicianReviewer's opinion is that formulary exception criteria are 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 met. Therefore,the Plan is required to cover Oxycontin ER.
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 Temazepam. 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 Temazepam. The drug is requested to treat an unspecified diagnosis, 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.Additional medical information was requested by the Part D QIC. The prescribing physician was asked to address the concurrent use of Opioid-Benzodiazepine and to provide the enrollee's diagnosis. A response from the prescribing physician was not received. Therefore, based on the current record, 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 Temazepam 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 Temazepam.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 us as required by Medicare rules because it did not make a timely decision.You asked the Plan to cover Morphine Sulfate ER 15 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 Morphine Sulfate ER 15 mg.Morphine Sulfate ER 15 mg is requested to treat an unknown diagnosis. The prescriber was asked to state the enrollee's diagnosis, because there was no prescriber statement of the enrollee's diagnosis in the case file. The prescriber was also asked to address medical necessity for the requested drug. A response from the prescriber was not received. Therefore, based on the current record, there is insufficient documentation that the requested medication is being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. In addition, an exceptions request based on medical necessity cannot be considered because it cannot be confirmed that the drug meets the definition of a Medicare Part D drug.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 needed additional information from the prescriber to determine whether the enrollee is using Morphine Sulfate ER for an FDA-approved use, or a use listed in the Medicare-approved compendia. The requested information was not received. As a result, we could not confirm that the drug is being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, it cannot be covered under the Medicare Part D benefit. An exceptions request based on medical necessity cannot be considered because it cannot be confirmed that the drug meets the definition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, our decision is that the Plan is not required to provide coverage for Morphine Sulfate ER. 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 Mesalamine. 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 Mesalamine 1000mg suppository. The drug is requested to treat radiation proctitis, which is an off-label(non-FDA approved) use. The Medicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations to support theuse of the requested drug, as prescribed, for treatment of the noted condition. Therefore, the requested drugis not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, anexceptions request based on medical necessity cannot be considered because the requested drug, asprescribed, does not meet the definition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, the requested drug is noteligible for coverage under Medicare Part D for the noted condition.For coverage under Part D, Medicare requires that the drug must be prescribed for a medically acceptedindication. A medically accepted indication means a use that is approved by the FDA or a use that issupported by one or more citations in Medicare approved compendia.Our Physician Reviewer reviewed this file and determined that there are no citations in the Medicareapproved compendia that support the use of Mesalamine for the diagnosed condition. As a result, the drugis not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, it cannotbe covered under the Medicare Part D benefit for this condition. An exceptions request based on medicalnecessity cannot be considered because this drug, as prescribed, does not meet the definition of a MedicarePart D drug. Therefore, our decision is that the Plan is not required to provide coverage for Mesalamine.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 provide a tiering exception for Memantine HCL. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the request for a tiering exception for Memantine HCL 10 mg tablet. The drug is requested to treat the enrollee's condition. The drug is a generic drug on Tier 2 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 (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 Memantine HCL.
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 Nexium DR. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the request for Nexium DR. Nexium DR is requested to treat the enrollee's condition. Additional information was requested from the prescribing physician; however, no additional information was received. 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 Nexium DR.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Albuterol Sulfate. 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 for the management of obstructive pulmonary disease.In this case, the record shows that Albuterol Sulfate is administered through a nebulizer in the home for a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 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. 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 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. Therefore, our decision is the Part D Plan is not required to cover Hizentra.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.Please contact the Plan for more information regarding coverage of Hizentra under the Part B benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Zioptan. The Plan did not grant this request. Wereceived this case to conduct an independent review.Medicare law and Plan rules do not allow tiering exceptions for non-formulary drugs being coveredthrough a formulary exception. The documentation in the record shows that Zioptan is currently beingcovered for the enrollee through a formulary exception. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not requiredto provide a tiering exception for Zioptan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Omega-3 Fish Oil. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.Medicare Part D does not cover non-prescription drugs. We checked FDA approved sources for the drug's classification or determined from other available resources that the drug is a non-prescription or OTC drug. Therefore, Omega-3 Fish Oil is not eligible for Part D coverage, and the Plan is not required to cover it under the Part D benefit. 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 cover Neulasta OnPro. 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 Neulasta OnPro. The drug is requested to treat neutropenia in an enrollee with myelodysplasticsyndrome receiving decitabine, which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use. The Medicare-approvedcompendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for treatmentof the noted condition. Therefore, the requested drug is not being prescribed for a medically acceptedindication as defined by Medicare law. As such, an exceptions request based on medical necessity cannotbe considered because the requested drug, as prescribed, does not meet the definition of a Medicare Part Ddrug. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D for the notedcondition.For coverage under Part D, Medicare requires that the drug must be prescribed for a medically acceptedindication. A medically accepted indication means a use that is approved by the FDA or a use that issupported by one or more citations in Medicare approved compendia.Our Physician Reviewer reviewed this file and determined that there are no citations in the Medicareapproved compendia that support the use of Neulasta OnPro for the diagnosed condition. As a result, thedrug 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 forNeulasta OnPro.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.