Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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 Sildenafil 20 mg. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.Medicare law excludes certain drugs from Part D coverage. Sildenafil 20 mg is one of those excluded drugs because it is a drug used to treat sexual or erectile dysfunction. The record submitted by the Plan does not indicate that they provide supplemental coverage for Sildenafil 20 mg. Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover Sildenafil 20 mg. 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 Ipratropium-Albuterol. 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 for the management of obstructive pulmonary disease. In this case, the record shows that Ipratropium-Albuterol is administered through a nebulizer in the home for a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, unspecified (J44.9). 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.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 Ulticare short pen needles 31G x 8MM. 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 Ulticare short pen needles.The drug is requested to treat the enrollee's condition. 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 Ulticare short pen needles 31G x 8MM.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Lexapro. 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 Lexapro 20 mg.Lexapro 20 mg is requested to treat the enrollee's condition. The requested drug is a brand drug on Tier 4 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 Lexapro.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Risedronate Sodium. 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 Risedronate Sodium. The drug is requested to treat age related osteoporosis. 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 Risedronate Sodium.
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 ICD-10 J44.1 (Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with (acute) exacerbation), J44.9 (Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, unspecified), J45.51 (Severe persistent asthma with (acute) exacerbation) and J45.40 (Moderate persistent asthma, uncomplicated). 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 Risperdal Consta. 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 Risperdal Consta. The drug is requested to treat the enrollee's condition. The drug is a brand drug on tier 4 of the Plan's formulary. There are no available lower tier brand drugs of the same type on the Plan's formulary to treat the enrollee's condition. Therefore, the drug is not eligible for a tiering exception. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that tiering exception criteria are not met.Medicare rules permit a Plan to grant an exception to its tiering structure so long as there is a drug of the same type (such as brand or biologic drugs when considering an exception for a brand or biologic drug) in a lower cost-sharing tier approved for treating the same condition that the higher cost-sharing tiered drug is being used to treat. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that tiering exception criteria are not met because there are no lower cost-sharing tiered drugs of the same type for treating the enrollee's condition. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide a tiering exception for Risperdal Consta.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Pulmozyme. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.We sent the case file to a Physician Reviewer. We asked this doctor to determine whether the Plan was correct in denying the request for Pulmozyme. Our Physician Reviewer noted that Pulmozyme was requested for an enrollee with a diagnosis of E84.9 cystic fibrosis, unspecified.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the request for Pulmozyme1 mg/mL. The drug is requested to treat cystic fibrosis. The prescribing physician has submitted a diagnosis code of E84.9 (unspecified cystic fibrosis); however, chart notes support the presence of pulmonary manifestations of cystic fibrosis consistent with diagnosis code E84.0. Based on the information provided, the drug would be eligible for coverage under Part B for the enrollee's condition.Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage in this case.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 Pulmozyme for the management of obstructive pulmonary disease.In this case, the record shows that Pulmozyme is administered through a nebulizer in the home for a diagnosis of E84.9 cystic fibrosis, unspecified. 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 Pulmozyme. 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 Lumigan 0.01% eye drop . The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.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 Lumigan 0.01% eye drop.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Azathioprine. 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 Azathioprine 50 mg tablet. Azathioprine 50 mg tablet is requested for treatment of interstitial lung disease due to sarcoidosis, 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 Azathioprine 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 Azathioprine. 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 provide a tiering exception for Gabapentin. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the request for a tiering exception for Gabapentin. The drug is requested to treat your condition. The drug is a generic drug on Tier 2 of the Plan's formulary. There are no available lower tier drugs of the same type on the Plan's formulary to treat the enrollee's condition. Therefore, the drug is not eligible for a tiering exception. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that tiering exception criteria are not met.Medicare rules permit a Plan to grant an exception to its tiering structure so long as there is a drug of the same type (such as brand or biologic drugs when considering an exception for a brand or biologic drug) in a lower cost-sharing tier approved for treating the same condition that the higher cost-sharing tiered drug is being used to treat. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that tiering exception criteria are not met because there are no lower cost-sharing tiered drugs of the same type for treating the enrollee's condition. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide a tiering exception for Gabapentin.
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 Aspirin. 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, Aspirin 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 Imitrex. 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 Imitrex. The drug is requested to treat acute Migraines. 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 Imitrex.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Percocet, 10-325 mg tablet. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the request for Percocet, 10-325 mg tablet, 180/30.Brand Percocet, 10-325 mg tablet, 180/30 is requested for ongoing treatment of chronic pain. The Plan has indicated that generic Oxycodone/Acetaminophen is on their formulary, and that the paid claims indicate the patient has been receiving the generic including the most recent fill January 30, 2020. The medical record from a visit January 24, 2020 states that active medications include Oxycodone/Acetaminophen; however it is stated in the plan to continue Percocet. The requests from the prescriber state that the enrollee has been stable on the requested drug and that the request is a continuation of treatment. There is insufficient documentation that brand Percocet is medically necessary. Additionally, based on the documentation provided, it appears that the enrollee is prescribed generic Oxycodone/Acetaminophen. 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 for Brand Percocet.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 Percocet, 10-325 mg tablet.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Mycophenolate Acid DR and Tacrolimus. 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 Mycophenolate Acid DR is needed for a Kidney transplant performed April 21, 2010. 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 Mycophenolate Acid DR is 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 Mycophenolate Acid DR. 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.We are dismissing the request for Tacrolimus. We received your letter asking for an appeal of the Plan's unfavorable determination for Tacrolimus. Medicare rules do not allow us to review this case until you have completed the appeal process with the Plan. You may request a Reconsideration appeal with us after the Plan issues an unfavorable Redetermination. You may wish to submit this request to the Plan at this time.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Febuxostat. 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 Febuxostat 40 mg. The drug is requested to treat gout. 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 Febuxostat.