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

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Trulicity. 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 2020 tiering exception for Trulicity. The drug is requested to treat Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Trulicity is a biologic drug on tier 3 of the Plan's 2020 formulary. There are no available lower tier biologic drugs of the same type on the Plan's 2020 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 for the 2020 Plan year.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the request for a 2021 tiering exception for Trulicity. The drug is requested to treat Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Trulicity is a biologic drug on tier 3 of the Plan's 2021 formulary. There are no available lower tier drugs on the Plan's 2021 formulary to treat the enrollee's condition. Therefore, the drug is not eligible for a 2021 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 Trulicity.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Dronabinol. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the request for Dronabinol. The drug is requested to treat poor appetite, abnormal weight loss, nutritional deficiencies, and nausea/vomiting, which are off-label (non-FDA approved) uses. The Medicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for treatment of the noted conditions. Therefore, the requested drug is not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, an exceptions request based on medical necessity cannot be considered because the requested drug, as prescribed, does not meet the definition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D for the noted conditions.For coverage under Part D, Medicare requires that the drug must be prescribed for a medically accepted indication. A medically accepted indication means a use that is approved by the FDA or a use that is supported by one or more citations in Medicare approved compendia. Our Physician Reviewer reviewed this file and determined that there are no citations in the Medicare approved compendia that support the use of Dronabinol for the diagnosed conditions. As a result, the drug is not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, it cannot be covered under the Medicare Part D benefit for these conditions. An exceptions request based on medical necessity cannot be considered because this drug, as prescribed, does not meet the definition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, our decision is that the Plan is not required to provide coverage for Dronabinol. This decision does not concern the medical necessity of the requested drug. It only establishes if payment can be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Mycophenolic Acid DR. 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 Mycophenolic Acid DR is needed for a kidney transplant. 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 Mycophenolic 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 Mycophenolic 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.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Symbicort, 160/4.5 mcg inhaler. 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 Symbicort, 160/4.5 mcg inhaler.The drug is requested to treat asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Symbicort 160/4.5 mcg inhaler is a brand drug on tier 3 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 Symbicort 160/4.5 mcg inhaler.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide reimbursement for Lubriderm-Fluocinonide-Menthol Compound. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.Medicare Part D does not cover drugs that are not FDA approved. A representative of the pharmacy stated that bulk powder was used or would be used when compounding the prescription for Lubriderm-Fluocinonide-Menthol Compound. Bulk powders used in pharmacy compounding are not reviewed and approved for safety and efficacy by the FDA. Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover or provide reimbursement for Lubriderm-Fluocinonide-Menthol Compound.This decision does not address the medical necessity or appropriateness 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 Budesonide EC. 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 Budesonide EC 3mg capsule. The drug is requested to treat Autoimmune hepatitis, in combination with Azathioprine. The drug is a generic drug on tier 4 of the Plan's formulary. The prescriber was asked if any alternatives to the requested drug would be appropriate to treat the enrollee. The prescriber answered, None. Therefore, 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 Budesonide EC.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Zolpidem. 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 Zolpidem 5 mg tablet. The drug is requested to treat chronic insomnia. The Plan limits the amount of Zolpidem 5 mg to 90 tablets per 365 days. The prescriber has not indicated that the number of doses of the requested drug allowed by the plan would likely be ineffective in treating the enrollee's condition and/or would likely cause harm to the enrollee. Therefore, an exception to the Plan's coverage criteria is not supported. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that quantity limit exception criteria are not met.Medicare rules allow a Part D Plan to manage its formulary by covering a limited quantity of certain drugs. A Plan must grant an exception if it determines that the requested dosage is medically reasonable and necessary, consistent with the prescriber's statement. Based on a review of the available documentation, our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that an exception to the quantity limit criteria is not met. Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover the requested quantity of Zolpidem.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Modafinil, 100 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 Modafinil, 100 mg tablet.The drug is requested to treat fatigue and daytime sleepiness in an enrollee with fibromyalgia, substance use disorder, and lumbosacral radiculopathy, 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 Modafinil, 100 mg tablet 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 Modafinil, 100 mg tablet. 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 Ondansetron 4 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 Ondansetron 4 mg. Ondansetron 4 mg is requested as part of the enrollee's perioperative regimen; it is noted that the enrollee was prescribed Ondansetron in preparation for a total hip replacement. The Plan's coverage criteria only require Medicare B vs. D determination; Ondansetron is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part B for the noted diagnosis. 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 Ondansetron 4 mg.Please note that if the Plan does not agree with our decision, they can ask us to open a case again. We only open a case again if we believe there was a mistake or if there is new information to review. The health plan has to show us the mistake and/or send us the new information. This does not happen often. If we decide to open the case again, we will notify you in writing that the case is being reviewed again and the outcome of the reopening.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Auryxia. 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 Auryxia.Auryxia is requested for ongoing treatment of iron deficiency anemia in this enrollee with Stage 3 chronic kidney disease who is not on dialysis. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that Auryxia is excluded from coverage under Medicare Part D because it is being used as a prescription vitamin/mineral.Medicare law excludes certain drugs from Part D coverage. Auryxia is one of those excluded drugs because it is a prescription vitamin and mineral product. The record submitted by the Plan does not indicate that they provide supplemental coverage for Auryxia. Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover Auryxia. 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

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 Diclofenac Sodium 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 Sodium 1% Gel. Diclofenac Sodium 1% Gel is requested for treatment of M51.36 - Other intervertebral disc degeneration, lumbar region, 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 Sodium 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 Sodium 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.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Hyoscyamine Sulfate. 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 Hyoscyamine Sulfate 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 Hyoscyamine Sulfate.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Ursodiol 250 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 Ursodiol 250 mg tablet. The drug is requested to treat the enrollee's condition. The drug is a generic drug 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 (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 Ursodiol 250 mg tablet.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

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

You asked the Plan to cover Northera. 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 Northera 100 mg. The drug is requested to treat Neurogenic Orthostatic Hypotension. The enrollee does not satisfy the Plan's coverage criteria. The prescriber has not sufficiently addressed the Plan's coverage criteria and/or 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. 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 Northera.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Mycophenolate Mofetil 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 Mofetil and Tacrolimus are needed for a kidney transplant. 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 Mofetil and Tacrolimus are 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 Mofetil and Tacrolimus.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.