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

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Yuvafem. 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 Yuvafem. The drug is requested to treat the enrollee's condition. The drug is a brand drug on Tier 4 of the Plan's formulary. You do not state why all available lower tier brand alternatives on the Plan's formulary to 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 the higher cost-sharing tiered drug for treatment of the enrollee's condition is medically necessary consistent with the prescriber's statement. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that tiering exception criteria are not met. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide a tiering exception for Yuvafem for the 2020 and 2021 Plan years.
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 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 Ipratropium-Albuterol nebulizer solution for the management of obstructive pulmonary disease. In this case, the record shows that Ipratropium-Albuterol nebulizer solution is administered through a nebulizer in the home for a diagnosis of asthma and/or 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 Ipratropium-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 Eliquis. 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 Eliquis. The drug is requested to treat deep venous thrombosis. The drug is 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 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 Eliquis.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Mycophenolate Mofetil. 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 Mycophenolate Mofetil. The drug is requested to treat antisynthetase syndrome with manifestations of interstitial lung disease and polymyositis, 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 Mycophenolate Mofetil 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 Mycophenolate Mofetil. 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 Azelaic Acid. 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 Azelaic Acid 15% Gel. The drug is requested to treat Seborrheic dermatitis, which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use. The medical record states that the requested drug is being used to treat Seborrheic dermatitis. Per the Reconsideration appeal letter, the diagnosis was updated to Rosacea. Supporting medical records were requested and an office note was provided. The office note still lists the diagnosis (under the Assessment/Plan section of the note) as Seborrheic dermatitis. The medical records do not support the diagnosis of Rosacea. 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 Azelaic Acid 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 Azelaic Acid.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 Cyclobenzaprine 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 Cyclobenzaprine HCL. The drug is requested to treat chronic low back 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, 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 Cyclobenzaprine HCL 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 Cyclobenzaprine HCL. 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 Fluticasone-Salmeterol. 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 Fluticasone-Salmeterol. The drug is requested to treat asthma. The drug is 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 (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 Fluticasone-Salmeterol for the 2021 Plan year.
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 Neurontin. 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 Neurontin. The drug is requested to treat Type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy. You state the enrollee has tried and failed Tylenol, Naprosyn, and Lidocaine cream. Brand Neurontin is not on the Plan's formulary. Generic Gabapentin capsules are on the Plan's formulary. You have 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 Neurontin.
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. The drug is requested to treat Type 2 diabetes with neuropathy. Januvia 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 Januvia.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Methotrexate Sodium 25 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 Methotrexate Sodium 25 mg/mL.The drug is requested to treat peripheral inflammatory spondyloarthritis/inflammatory polyarthritis, 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 Methotrexate Sodium 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 Methotrexate Sodium. 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 reimbursement for Levothyroxine 100 mcg, Losartan 25 mg and Onetouch Ultra Blue Test Strips. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.Medicare law states that Part D sponsors are required to coordinate with other providers of prescription drug coverage with respect to the payment of premiums and coverage, as well as coverage supplementing the benefits available under Part D. Which insurance company provides benefits first will depend on the situation. The Plan denied the request for reimbursement for Levothyroxine 100 mcg, Losartan 25 mg and Onetouch Ultra Blue Test Strips purchased on the basis that the Explanation of Benefits from your primary insurance, who already covered their portion of these claims. The Explanation of Benefits from your primary insurance was not provided. Therefore, it is our decision the Plan is not required to provide reimbursement for Levothyroxine 100 mcg, Losartan 25 mg and Onetouch Ultra Blue Test Strips.You may wish to contact your primary insurance and request the Explanation of Benefits and submit it to the Part D Plan directly.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

Citations used in this letter come from Section 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations which you will find abbreviated as 42 CFR with the corresponding section numbers, i.e., 42 CFR Sections 423.578, 423.100.A Part D plan is permitted to use a number of different tools to manage its formulary. One of these tools is known as prior authorization. This process requires an enrollee to obtain coverage approval for a drug before the drug is dispensed and covered by the plan. 70 Federal Register No. 18, issued January 28, 2005 (Preamble to Final Rule). Formulary use includes the application of cost utilization tools, including step-therapy, dosage limitations and therapeutic substitution. 42 CFR Section 423.578(b)(iii). The exceptions process extends to coverage requests to set aside cost utilization rules for non-formulary drugs. A Part D plan must grant an exception whenever it determines that the drug is medically necessary, consistent with the prescriber's statement, and that the drug would be covered but for the fact that it is subject to cost utilization rules. 42 CFR Section 423.578(b). The statement must show that all of the covered drugs on any tier of the plan's formulary for treatment of the enrollee's condition would not be as effective as the drug at issue, or would have adverse effects for the enrollee. Parts C & D Enrollee Grievances, Organization/Coverage Determinations, and Appeals Guidance Manual, Section 40.5.3.The Part D Plan can only cover drugs prescribed for a medically accepted indication. The Plan requires prior approval (also called prior authorization) before covering some prescription drugs. If prior approval is not obtained, the Plan may not cover the drug. 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. Please refer to the Plan's Evidence of Coverage (EOC).
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

You asked the Plan to cover Otezla DS PK. 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 Otezla DS PK. Otezla DS PK is requested to treat psoriasis. The enrollee does not satisfy the Plan's coverage criteria due to lack of prior trial and failure of Humira and Enbrel. You sent additional information and medical records addressing the diagnosis and coverage criteria. You have 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 due to a history of stage IIIB colon cancer. 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 Otezla DS PK.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 cover Tacrolimus and Mycophenolate Mofetil. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.Medicare law specifically excludes coverage for any drug under the Part D program for which payment would be available under Parts A or B of Medicare for that individual. Coverage is available under Medicare Part B for prescription drugs used in immunosuppressive therapy furnished to a beneficiary who has received an organ transplant, provided the beneficiary receiving the drug was enrolled in Medicare Part A at the time of the organ transplant. The case record indicates that Tacrolimus and Mycophenolate Mofetil are needed for a kidney transplant. According to Medicare enrollment records, the enrollee was determined to be entitled to Medicare Part A coverage at the time of the transplant. Thus, the transplant is considered a Medicare covered transplant and Tacrolimus and Mycophenolate Mofetil are eligible for coverage under Medicare Part B. Drugs which are eligible for Part B coverage are excluded from Part D coverage by Medicare law. Therefore, our decision is that Part D Plan is not required to cover Tacrolimus and Mycophenolate Mofetil.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.