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

You asked the Plan to cover Testosterone 1% Gel and Tadalafil. 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 Testosterone 1% Gel.Testosterone 1% Gel is requested to treat an unknown diagnosis. The prescriber was asked to state your diagnosis, because there was no prescriber statement of your 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.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the request for Tadalafil.Tadalafil is requested to treat an unknown diagnosis. The prescriber was asked to state your diagnosis, because there was no prescriber statement of your 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 reviewed this file and determined that there are no citations in the Medicare approved compendia that support the use of Testosterone 1% Gel or Tadalafil 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 Testosterone 1% Gel or Tadalafil.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 Restasis. 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 Restasis. The drug is requested to treat keratoconjunctivitis sicca. The enrollee does not satisfy the Plan's coverage criteria. You have not sufficiently addressed the Plan's coverage criteria (no documentation of Schirmers test OR non-invasive tear breakup time, osmolarity or ocular surface staining) and/or 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. 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 Restasis.
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 Buprenorphine 2 mg SL tablet, 120 tablets per 30 days. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the request for Buprenorphine 2 mg SL tablet, 120 tablets per 30 days. The drug is requested to treat pain. The Plan limits the amount of Buprenorphine 2 mg SL tablet to 90 tablets per 30 days. You have not indicated that the number of doses of the requested drug allowed by the Plan would likely be ineffective in treating the enrollee's condition and/or would likely cause harm to the enrollee. Therefore, an exception to the Plan's coverage criteria is not supported. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that quantity limit exception criteria are not met.Medicare rules allow a Part D Plan to manage its formulary by covering a limited quantity of certain drugs. A Plan must grant an exception if it determines that the requested dosage is medically reasonable and necessary, consistent with the prescriber's statement. Based on a review of the available documentation, our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that an exception to the quantity limit criteria is not met. Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover the requested quantity of Buprenorphine 2 mg SL tablet, 120 tablets per 30 days.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Levothyroxine Compound. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.Medicare Part D does not cover drugs that are not FDA approved for both safety and effectiveness. We determined that Levothyroxine Compound is not FDA approved for both safety and effectiveness by checking FDA sources. Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover Levothyroxine Compound. This decision does not address the medical necessity or appropriateness of the requested drug. It only establishes that payment cannot be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Lidocaine Patch 5%. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the request for Lidocaine Patch 5%. The drug is requested to treat back and shoulder pain. The prescriber was asked to clarify the enrollee's diagnosis and to provide supporting medical records. The prescriber was also asked questions about the enrollee's pain and other treatments. 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.For coverage under Part D, Medicare requires that the drug must be prescribed for a medically accepted indication. A medically accepted indication means a use that is approved by the FDA or a use that is supported by one or more citations in Medicare approved compendia. Our Physician Reviewer reviewed this file and determined that there are no citations in the Medicare approved compendia that support the use of Lidocaine Patch 5% for the diagnosed condition. As a result, the drug is not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, it cannot be covered under the Medicare Part D benefit for this condition. An exceptions request based on medical necessity cannot be considered because this drug, as prescribed, does not meet the definition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, our decision is that the Plan is not required to provide coverage for Lidocaine Patch 5%. 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 Sildenafil. 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 Sildenafil. The drug is requested to treat essential (primary) hypertension in an enrollee with heart disease without angina, 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 Sildenafil 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 Sildenafil. 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 Rapamune. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.In this case, the Plan denied Rapamune on the basis that it is eligible for Medicare Part B. The case record indicates that Rapamune is needed for a liver transplant. According to Medicare enrollment records, the enrollee was not entitled to Medicare Part A coverage at the time of the transplant. Thus, the transplant is not considered a Medicare covered transplant and Rapamune is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part B. We therefore asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether coverage criteria are met under Part D.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the request for Rapamune 1 mg. The drug is requested to treat liver transplant, 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 Rapamune 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 Rapamune. 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 Tymlos. 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 Tymlos. The drug is requested to treat osteoporosis. The enrollee does not satisfy the Plan's coverage criteria (you have indicated that the enrollee has already received more than 24 months of treatment with parathyroid hormone analog therapy [e.g., abaloparatide or teriparatide]). You have not sufficiently addressed the Plan's coverage criteria and/or 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. 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 Tymlos.
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 refractory nausea and vomiting associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease, duodenitis, and erosive gastritis, which are off-label (non-FDA approved) uses. The Medicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for treatment of the noted conditions. 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 conditions.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 conditions. 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 these conditions. 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: Partially Favorable

You asked the Plan to cover and provide a tiering exception for Mycophenolate Mofetil. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.Mycophenolate Mofetil, coverage:In this case, the Plan denied coverage of Mycohenolate Mofetil stating it was already approved under Medicare Part B. However, research of the Medicare Data Base shows no evidence of a transplant. Therefore, we sent to our Physician Reviewer to determine if coverage criteria was met for coverage under Medicare Part D.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the request for Mycophenolate Mofetil 250 mg. The drug is requested to treat lupus glomerulonephritis. The requested drug is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part B. The enrollee satisfies the Plan's coverage criteria. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that prior authorization criteria are met.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 citations in the Medicare approved compendia that support the use of Mycophenolate Mofetil for the diagnosed condition. As a result, Mycophenolate Mofetil is being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. Medicare rules allow a Part D Plan to manage its formulary by requiring prior approval for certain drugs. Based on the available documentation, our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that prior approval criteria are met. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is required to cover Mycophenolate Mofetil.Mycophenolate Mofetil, tiering exception:A Part D Plan may establish tiered cost-sharing for drugs on its formulary of the same type (such as brand or biologic drugs when considering an exception for a brand or biologic drug). Mycophenolate Mofetil is classified as a Tier 1 drug on the Plan's formulary. Tier 1 drugs are not eligible for a tiering exception because they are already classified as the lowest tier on the Plan's formulary. Therefore, our decision is the Part D Plan is not required to provide a tiering exception for Mycophenolate Mofetil.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 Octagam. 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 Octagam 10 gm/100 mL. The drug is requested to treat nonfamilial hypogammaglobulinemia secondary to Rituxan use for neuromyelitis optica, 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 Octagam 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 Octagam.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 Sildenafil Citrate. 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 Sildenafil Citrate. The drug is requested to treat pulmonary arterial hypertension. The enrollee does not satisfy the Plan's coverage criteria (no right heart catheterization data provided). You have not sufficiently addressed the Plan's coverage criteria and/or 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. 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 Sildenafil Citrate.