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

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Corlanor. The Plan did not grant this request. Wereceived this case to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor a tiering exception for Corlanor. The drug is requested to treat heart failure. The drug is on tier 4 of thePlan's formulary. There are no available lower tier brand drugs of the same type on the Plan's formulary totreat the enrollee's condition. Therefore, the drug is not eligible for a tiering exception. Our PhysicianReviewer'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 thesame type (such as brand or biologic drugs when considering an exception for a brand or biologic drug) in alower cost-sharing tier approved for treating the same condition that the higher cost-sharing tiered drug isbeing used to treat. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that tiering exception criteria are not met becausethere are no lower cost-sharing tiered drugs of the same type for treating the enrollee's condition.Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide a tiering exception for Corlanor.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Nucynta. 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 Nucynta. The drug is requested to treat chronic pain and cervical radiculopathy. The prescriber sent a letter, stating that the enrollee has tried and failed or had adverse effects with Motrin, Aleve, and Percocet. Nucynta is not on the Plan's formulary. The prescriber has not indicated why all alternatives required by the Plan would likely not be as effective for the enrollee as the requested drug; and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm to the enrollee. Therefore, an exception to the Plan's coverage criteria is not supported. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that formulary exception criteria are not met.A Plan must grant an exception for a drug that is not on its formulary if it determines that the requested drug is medically necessary, consistent with the prescriber's statement. Based on a review of the available documentation, our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that formulary exception criteria are not met. Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover Nucynta.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Stelara. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conductan independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor Stelara. The drug is requested to treat L73.2 Hidradenitis suppurativa, which is an off-label (non-FDAapproved) use. The Medicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of therequested drug, as prescribed, for treatment of the noted condition. Therefore, the requested drug is notbeing prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, an exceptionsrequest based on medical necessity cannot be considered because the requested drug, as prescribed, doesnot meet the definition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for coverageunder Medicare Part D for the noted condition.For coverage under Part D, Medicare requires that the drug must be prescribed for a medically acceptedindication. A medically accepted indication means a use that is approved by the FDA or a use that issupported by one or more citations in Medicare approved compendia.Our Physician Reviewer reviewed this file and determined that there are no citations in the Medicareapproved compendia that support the use of Stelara for the diagnosed condition. As a result, the drug is notbeing prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, it cannot becovered under the Medicare Part D benefit for this condition. An exceptions request based on medicalnecessity cannot be considered because this drug, as prescribed, does not meet the definition of a MedicarePart D drug. Therefore, our decision is that the Plan is not required to provide coverage for Stelara.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 cover Febuxostat, 40 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 Febuxostat, 40 mg.Febuxostat, 40 mg is requested for ongoing treatment of gout in this enrollee who had an adverse effect to Allopurinol. The Plan has indicated in their denial letters that Probenecid is on their formulary. The prescriber has not indicated why all alternatives required by the Plan would likely not be as effective for the enrollee as the requested drug; and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm to the enrollee. Therefore, an exception to the Plan's coverage criteria is not supported. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that formulary exception criteria are not met.A Plan must grant an exception for a drug that is not on its formulary if it determines that the requested drug is medically necessary, consistent with the prescriber's statement. Based on a review of the available documentation, our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that formulary exception criteria are not met. Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover Febuxostat, 40 mg tablet.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Corlanor. 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 Corlanor. The drug is requested to treat dysautonomia manifested by hypertension and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, 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 Corlanor 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 Corlanor. 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 Otezla starter pack and Otezla 30 mg. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the request for Otezla. Otezla is requested to treat severe psoriasis in this 68-year-old man who has involvement of 24% of his body surface area. It is noted that the enrollee has failed high dose topical steroids. The Plan has indicated that Cosentyx, Enbrel, Humira, and Skyrizi are on their formulary. The prescriber states that biologics have been avoided due to their immunosuppressive properties and side effects, and systemic DMARDs (disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs) have been avoided due to the risk of liver complications. The prescriber has not stated that this particular enrollee is immunosuppressed or at risk for liver complications. 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.Medicare rules require a Part D Plan to issue a coverage decision or a redetermination decision within the specified timeframes. If the Plan does not make a timely decision, this is considered a denial. In these circumstances, the Plan is required to forward the coverage request or the redetermination request to the Part D QIC. The case record indicates multiple requests were submitted to the Plan. The Plan did not properly process these requests to move the case forward to the next appeal level. Therefore, the applicable time frames have been exceeded, and the Part D QIC has jurisdiction to process this case.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 Otezla starter pack and Otezla 30 mg.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

Medicare rules require a Part D Plan to issue a decision regarding coverage within the specified timeframe.If the Plan does not make a timely decision, this is considered a denial. The Plan forwarded this case to usas required by Medicare rules because it did not make a timely decision.You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Eliquis. The Plan did not grant this request. Wereceived this case to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor a tiering exception for Eliquis. The drug is requested to treat the enrollee's condition. The drug is abrand drug on tier 3 of the Plan's formulary. There are no available lower tier brand drugs on the Plan'sformulary to treat the enrollee's condition. Therefore, the drug is not eligible for a tiering exception. OurPhysician 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 thesame type (such as brand or biologic drugs when considering an exception for a brand or biologic drug) in alower cost-sharing tier approved for treating the same condition that the higher cost-sharing tiered drug isbeing used to treat. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that tiering exception criteria are not met becausethere are no lower cost-sharing tiered drugs of the same type for treating the enrollee's condition.Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide a tiering exception for Eliquis.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Horizant ER. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case toconduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor Horizant ER. Horizant ER is requested for treatment of polyneuropathy, unspecified, and lumbarradiculopathy, which are off-label (non-FDA approved) uses. The Medicare-approved compendia do notcontain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for treatment of the notedconditions. Therefore, the requested drug is not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication asdefined by Medicare law. As such, an exceptions request based on medical necessity cannot be consideredbecause 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.Of note, medical records submitted with the request for reconsideration included records from a patientencounter dated February 18, 2020 which were the same as notes previously submitted with the sameencounter date with the exception of the impression and plan - the diagnosis of neuropathy was removed aswas the comment in the discussion of neuropathy that Horizant worked better. Instead, the diagnosis ofrestless leg syndrome was added and the comment regarding Horizant was amended to state that it workedbetter for the enrollee's restless leg. It was noted that the newly submitted progress note dated February 18,2020 was signed February 24, 2020 rather than on February 18, 2020. The information submitted appearedclearly to be an amended note and was insufficient documentation that Horizant ER is being prescribed totreat restless leg syndrome.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 Horizant ER for the diagnosed condition. As a result, the drugis not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, it cannotbe covered under the Medicare Part D benefit for this condition. An exceptions request based on medicalnecessity cannot be considered because this drug, as prescribed, does not meet the definition of a MedicarePart D drug. Therefore, our decision is that the Plan is not required to provide coverage for Horizant ER.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: Favorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Glycopyrrolate 2 mg. The Plan did not grant thisrequest. We received this case to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor a tiering exception for Glycopyrrolate 2 mg tablet. The drug is requested to treat a gastric/peptic ulcer.Glycopyrrolate 2 mg is a generic drug on tier 3 of the Plan's formulary. The prescriber has indicated whyall eligible lower tier 2 anticholinergic alternatives on the Plan's formulary to treat the enrollee's condition(Dicyclomine) (1) would not be as effective for the enrollee as the requested drug; and/or (2) would haveadverse effects for the enrollee. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that tiering exception criteria are met.Medicare rules permit a Plan to grant an exception to its tiering structure whenever it determines that thenon-preferred or higher cost-sharing drug for treatment of the enrollee's condition is medically necessaryconsistent with the prescriber's statement. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that tiering exceptioncriteria are met. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is required to provide a tiering exception forGlycopyrrolate 2 mg from the date of the Plan's initial denial.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Mesalamine DR . The Plan did not grant this request.We received this case to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor a tiering exception for Mesalamine DR 1.2 gm tab 120/30. The drug is requested to treat Ulcerativeproctitis. The drug is a generic drug on tier 4 of the Plan's formulary. There are no available lower tierdrugs of the same type on the Plan's formulary to treat the enrollee's condition. Therefore, the drug is noteligible for a tiering exception. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that tiering exception criteria are notmet.Medicare rules permit a Plan to grant an exception to its tiering structure so long as there is a drug of thesame type in a lower cost-sharing tier approved for treating the same condition that the higher cost-sharingtiered drug is being used to treat. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that tiering exception criteria are notmet because there are no lower cost-sharing tiered drugs of the same type for treating the enrollee'scondition. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide a tiering exception for MesalamineDR.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

Medicare rules require a Part D Plan to issue a decision regarding coverage within the specified timeframe.If the Plan does not make a timely decision, this is considered a denial. The Plan forwarded this case to usas required by Medicare rules because it did not make a timely decision.You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Lantus Solostar. 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 thesame type (such as brand or biologic drugs when considering an exception for a brand or biologic drug) ifthe lower tier(s) on the formulary only contain(s) generic alternative drugs.Lantus Solostar is a Tier 3 brand drug. The lower cost-sharing tiers only contain generic alternative drugs.Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide a tiering exception for Lantus Solostar.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Omega-3 Acid Ethyl Esters . 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 Omega-3 Acid Ethyl Esters 1 gm. The drug is requested to treat hyperlipidemia. The drug is on tier 3 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 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 Omega-3 Acid Ethyl Esters.
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.The Plan provided documentation that coverage (prior authorization) was approved by the Plan. Therefore, we are dismissing the request for coverage for Repatha. You should contact the Plan for more information regarding how and when coverage for Repatha will be provided.You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Repatha syringe. 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 Repatha 140 mg/mL. The drug is requested to treat atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The drug is 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 Repatha.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Cyclobenzaprine. 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 Cyclobenzaprine. The drug is requested to treat the enrollee's condition. The drug is a generic drug on Tier 4 of the Plan's formulary. The prescriber does not state why all available lower tier 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 Cyclobenzaprine.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

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