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

You asked the Plan to cover Dronabinol, 2.5 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 Dronabinol, 2.5 mg capsule.The drug is requested to treat anorexia/loss of appetite and weight loss. Drugs prescribed to treat anorexia and/or weight loss, unrelated to AIDS wasting or cachexia due to certain chronic diseases, are excluded from coverage under Medicare Part D. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from coverage.Medicare law excludes certain drugs from Part D coverage. Dronabinol, 2.5 mg capsule is one of those excluded drugs because it is a drug used for anorexia, weight loss or weight gain. The record submitted by the Plan does not indicate that they provide supplemental coverage for Dronabinol, 2.5 mg capsule. Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover Dronabinol, 2.5 mg capsule. 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 Topiramate. 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 Topiramate. The drug is requested to treat back pain/coccyx 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 Topiramate 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 Topiramate. 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 Apriso ER. 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 Apriso ER. The drug is requested to treat ulcerative colitis with pouchitis. Mesalamine DR tablet is available on the Plan's formulary. The prescriber has not indicated why this alternative 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 Apriso ER.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide additional reimbursement for Atorvastatin 20 mg purchased April 22, 2019. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review. Of note, the previous request (reviewed under appeal 1-9159778751) was incorrectly dismissed as untimely. We are now reviewing the request for reimbursement.Medicare rules allow a Part D Plan to apply coinsurance and copayments to covered drugs. If an enrollee pays the full cost of a prescription, the enrollee may submit a request for reimbursement with proof of payment to ask the Plan to pay its share of the cost. The Plan required a $2 or $10 copayment amount for up to a 30 day supply of a Tier 1 drug purchased in 2019 from a standard retail pharmacy and a preferred retail pharmacy (respectively). Atorvastatin 20 mg was on the Plan's 2019 formulary and was classified as a Tier 1 drug. You initiated the appeal process for reimbursement in June 2019. You were denied reimbursement. In July 2019, the Plan agreed that sufficient information was provided to re-process the claim and provide reimbursement. You are now requesting, addition reimbursement. In this case, the Plan provided documentation showing that this claim was reprocessed correctly by the Plan. The record shows that although you paid $230.99 on April 22, 2019 and the Plan only provided $4.80 reimbursement, the Plan verified the remaining balance was applied to your TrOOP (True Out Of Pocket [costs]) (it was applied to the initial coverage stage of coverage). The Plan is allowed to apply the remaining balance to your deductible amounts instead of providing reimbursement. Once your total drug costs reach $3,820, you move into the coverage gap stage of coverage.The case record indicates that the Plan provided coverage in accordance with the Part D contract. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide additional reimbursement for Atorvastatin 20 mg purchased April 22, 2019.
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 pulmonary arterial hypertension. The enrollee does not satisfy the Plan's coverage criteria. You have not sufficiently addressed the Plan's coverage criteria (pulmonary arterial hypertension diagnosis confirmed by right heart catheterization) 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.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Arnuity Ellipta. 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 Arnuity Ellipta. The drug is requested to treat asthma. 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 Arnuity Ellipta.
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. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.We asked a Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Plan was correct in denying the request for Morphine Sulfate ER which is subject to prior approval. Our Physician Reviewer needed additional information from you to make this determination. You were asked to address whether the drugs offered by the Plan for the treatment of the enrollee's condition would: (1) not be as effective as the requested drug; and/or (2) have adverse effects. The requested information was not received. Based on a review of the available documentation, neither prior authorization criteria 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 Morphine Sulfate ER.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Clopidogrel, 75 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 a tiering exception for Clopidogrel 75 mg.The drug is requested to treat coronary artery disease. The drug is 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 Clopidogrel, 75 mg tablet.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

Medicare rules require a Part D Plan to issue a decision regarding coverage within the specified timeframe.If the Plan does not make a timely decision, this is considered a denial. The Plan forwarded this case to usas required by Medicare rules because it did not make a timely decision.You asked the Plan to cover Butorphanol 10 mg/mL Spray as prescribed. 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 Butorphanol 10 mg/mL.The drug is requested to treat migraines. A request for prescriber statement was sent and returned. Thestatement satisfied the Plan's formulary exception criteria in the included denial letter and was supported bythe medical records in the case file. The prescriber has indicated why all alternatives required by the Planwould likely not be as effective as the requested drug for the enrollee, and/or would likely cause adversereaction(s) or other harm to the enrollee. Therefore, an exception to the Plan's coverage criteria is medicallynecessary. Our Physician Reviewer'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 Butorphanol 10 mg/mL Spray.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Zarxio. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.We asked a Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Plan was correct in denying the request for Zarxio which is subject to prior approval. Our Physician Reviewer needed additional information from the prescriber to make this determination. The prescriber was asked to address whether the drugs offered by the Plan for the treatment of the enrollee's condition would: (1) not be as effective as the requested drug; and/or (2) have adverse effects. The requested information was not received. Based on a review of the available documentation, neither prior authorization criteria 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 Zarxio.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Lidocaine 5% patch. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this caseto conduct an independent review.Our Physician Reviewer needed additional information from the prescriber to determine whether theenrollee is using Lidocaine 5% patch for an FDA-approved use, or a use listed in the Medicare-approvedcompendia. The requested information was not received. As a result, we could not confirm that the drug isbeing prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, it cannot becovered under the Medicare Part D benefit. An exceptions request based on medical necessity cannot beconsidered 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 Lidocaine 5% patch.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 Lidocaine 5% patch 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, 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 forLidocaine 5% patch.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 Meprobamate. 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 Meprobamate 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 Meprobamate.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Praluent. 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 Praluent. The drug is requested to treat the enrollee's condition. The drug is a biologic 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 Praluent.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Celecoxib. 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 Plan was correct in denying the request for Celecoxib. Celecoxib is requested to treat osteoarthritis. The prescriber has not indicated that the enrollee has tried all alternatives required by the Plan, or why the Plan's required step therapy drugs would likely not be as effective for the enrollee as the requested drug, and/or would likely cause adverse reactions or other harm to the enrollee. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that neither step therapy or step therapy exception criteria are met.Medicare rules allow a Part D Plan to manage its formulary by requiring step therapy for certain drugs. A Plan must grant an exception 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 an exception to step therapy criteria is not met. Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover Celecoxib.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover BHRT Base cream. 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 BHRT Base cream is not FDA approved for both safety and effectiveness by checking FDA sources. Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover BHRT Base cream. 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 provide a tiering exception for Myrbetriq ER. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.Medicare rules do not require the Part D plan to grant a tiering exception for a brand or biologic drug of the same type (such as brand or biologic drugs when considering an exception for a brand or biologic drug) if the lower tier(s) on the formulary only contain(s) generic alternative drugs. Myrbetriq ER is a Tier 3 brand drug. The lower cost-sharing tier(s) only contain(s) generic alternative drugs. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide a tiering exception for Myrbetriq ER.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Synvisc. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.Medicare Part D does not cover devices. Synvisc has been classified by the FDA as a device, not as a drug. Therefore, our decision is the Part D Plan is not required to cover Synvisc. This decision does not address the medical necessity or appropriateness of the requested item. 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 Diclofenac 1% Gel. 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 Diclofenac 1% Gel. The drug is requested to treat back pain due to degenerative and osteoarthritis, 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 Diclofenac 1% Gel 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 Diclofenac 1% Gel. 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.