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 Temazepam. 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 Temazepam. The drug is requested to treat an unspecified diagnosis, 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. Additional medical information was requested by the Part D QIC. The prescribing physician was asked to address the Plan's prior authorization criteria and to provide your diagnosis. A response from the prescribing physician was not received. Therefore, based on the current record, 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 Temazepam 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 Temazepam. 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: Favorable

You asked the Plan to cover Lidocaine 5% Patch. 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 5% Patch. The drug is requested to treat chronic back pain/neuropathic pain related to degenerative disc disease and lumbar radiculopathy. For coverage under the prescription drug benefit, Medicare requires that the drug prescribed be used for a medically accepted indication. Our Physician Reviewer found that the Medicare-approved resources do contain citations to support the use of the requested drug for treatment of the noted condition. The following citation in the comparative section of DrugDex, a Medicare approved compendium, supports the use of the requested drug for the enrollee's condition: Opioids did not significantly improve pain-related function compared with nonopioids (3.4 vs 3.3 points on the 11-point Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) interference scale), nonopioids significantly improved pain intensity (mean BPI, 4 vs 3.5), and opioids were associated with significantly more adverse effects (mean symptoms, 1.8 vs 0.9) over 12 months in a randomized trial in patients with either chronic back (65%) or hip or knee osteoarthritis (35%) pain despite analgesic use (N=240). In addition, the reference cited in DrugDex states: Among patients with chronic back pain or hip or knee osteoarthritis pain, treatment with opioids compared with nonopioid medications did not result in significantly better pain related function over 12 months. Nonopioid treatment was associated with significantly better pain intensity. Therefore, the requested drug is being prescribed for a medically accepted indication. 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 Lidocaine 5% Patch for the diagnosed condition. As a result, Lidocaine 5% Patch 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 Lidocaine 5% Patch.
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 us as required by Medicare rules because it did not make a timely decision.You asked the Plan to cover Tetanus Diptheria Toxoids. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.The Plan covers prescriptions filled at an out-of-network pharmacy only in certain limited circumstances. The record indicates that you received Tetanus Diptheria Toxoids, a Medicare-covered vaccine, from your physician's office on October 21, 2019. The case record includes proof of payment showing that you have paid the bill for vaccine and its administration in full. The Plan's out-of-network coverage rules were followed. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is required to cover and provide any applicable reimbursement for Tetanus Diptheria Toxoids received on October 21, 2019, from your physician's office.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Cimzia. 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 Cimzia 200 mg. The drug is requested to treat rheumatoid arthritis. 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 Cimzia.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Xifaxan. 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 Xifaxan 550 mg tab 28/14. The drug is requested to treat gastroparesis, chronic constipation, nausea,gastroesophageal reflux disease, and irritable bowel syndrome. The prescriber was asked to clarify theenrollee's diagnosis, because the underlying etiology of the enrollee's condition was unclear from the casefile. The prescriber was also asked to provide supporting medical records and to address the Plan's priorauthorization criteria. A response from the prescriber was not received. Therefore, based on the currentrecord, there is insufficient documentation that the requested medication is being prescribed for a medicallyaccepted indication as defined by Medicare law. In addition, prior authorization exception criteria are notmet.Medicare rules allow a Part D Plan to manage its formulary by requiring prior approval for certain drugs. APlan must grant an exception to prior approval rules if it determines that the requested drug is medicallynecessary, consistent with the prescriber's statement. Based on the available documentation, our PhysicianReviewer's opinion is that an exception to prior approval criteria is not met. Therefore, the Plan is notrequired to cover Xifaxan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Mycophenolate Mofetil. The Plan did not grant this request. We received thiscase to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor Mycophenolate Mofetil. The drug is requested to treat extrapulmonary sarcoidosis, which is an off-label(non-FDA approved) use. The Medicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations to support theuse of the requested drug, as prescribed, for treatment of the noted condition. Therefore, the requested drugis not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, anexceptions request based on medical necessity cannot be considered because the requested drug, asprescribed, does not meet the definition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, the requested drug is noteligible 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 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 Mycophenolate Mofetil for the diagnosed condition. As aresult, the drug is not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. Assuch, it cannot be covered under the Medicare Part D benefit for this condition. An exceptions requestbased on medical necessity cannot be considered because this drug, as prescribed, does not meet thedefinition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, our decision is that the Plan is not required to providecoverage for Mycophenolate Mofetil.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 Mycophenolate Acid DR. The Plan did not grant this request. We received thiscase to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor Mycophenolate Acid DR 360 mg. The drug is requested for the prophylaxis of heart transplantrejection, which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use. The Medicare-approved compendia do notcontain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for treatment of the notedcondition. 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 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 Mycophenolate Acid DR for the diagnosed condition. As aresult, the drug is not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. Assuch, it cannot be covered under the Medicare Part D benefit for this condition. An exceptions requestbased on medical necessity cannot be considered because this drug, as prescribed, does not meet thedefinition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, our decision is that the Plan is not required to providecoverage for Mycophenolate Acid DR.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 Viberzi. 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 Viberzi. The drug is requested to treat diarrhea associated with lymphocytic colitis, which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use. Medical records from date of service March 12, 2020 were provided which support these diagnoses. 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 Viberzi 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 Viberzi. 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 Buprenorphine HCL. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the request for Buprenorphine HCL. The drug is requested to treat chronic pain and opioid dependence. The enrollee does not satisfy the Plan's coverage criteria. 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 Buprenorphine HCL.
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 Acetaminophen. 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, Acetaminophen 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: Favorable

You asked the Plan to cover Tacrolimus and Mycophenolate Mofetil. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.The case record indicates that Tacrolimus and Mycophenolate Mofetil are needed for a kidney transplant performed April 15, 2003. In this case, we sent a request for additional information to the Part D Plan. We requested the evidence that the Plan used to determine that Medicare paid for the transplant performed April 15, 2003. The Plan did not respond to our request, and the Plan failed to provide claims data that supports that Medicare paid for the transplant in question. Based on the available information we cannot verify that coverage would be available for the requested drug under Medicare Part B. Therefore we asked our Physician Reviewer to determine if other Medicare Part D coverage criteria are met.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the request for Tacrolimus 1 mg and Mycophenolate Mofetil 250 mg. The drugs are requested to treat kidney transplant. There is no evidence that Medicare paid for the enrollee's transplant; therefore the requested drugs are not eligible for coverage under Part B. The enrollee satisfies the Plan's coverage criteria. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that prior authorization criteria are met.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 Tacrolimus and Mycophenolate Mofetil.
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.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor Lidocaine 5% Patch. The drug is requested to treat pain due to lumbar spondylosis, multiple sclerosisand chronic demyelinating disease, which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use. You sent a statementdated July 29, 2020 clarifying the medical history. The Medicare-approved compendia do not contain anycitations 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 byMedicare law. As such, an exceptions request based on medical necessity cannot be considered because therequested drug, as prescribed, does not meet the definition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, therequested 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 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

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 and provide reimbursement for Fluzone and Shingrix received on November and November 21, 2019, respectively, from your physician's office. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.The Part D Plan covers certain vaccines purchased and/or administered out-of-network. If an enrollee receives a vaccine from an out-of-network provider, the enrollee will generally have to pay the full cost for the vaccine. The enrollee may then submit a request for reimbursement with proof of payment to ask the Plan to pay its share of the cost. In this case, the record shows that you were administered Fluzone and Shingrix on November 5 and November 21, 2019, respectively. You submitted a request for reimbursement; however, the record does not include proof of payment in full for the vaccines. The Plan's criteria for out-of-network coverage and reimbursement have not been met. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to cover or provide reimbursement for Fluzone and Shingrix received from your physician's office.