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

You asked the Plan to cover Hyqvia. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.   Medicare law specifically excludes coverage for any drug for which payment would be available under Parts A or B of Medicare for that individual. Medicare Part B pays for the rental or purchase of DME if the equipment is used in the patient?s home or in an institution that is used as a home. Payment may be made for supplies necessary for the effective use of DME, including drugs and biologicals which must be put directly into the equipment in order to achieve the therapeutic benefit of the DME. Medicare Part B local policy states that an external infusion pump is covered for administration of subcutaneous immune globulin if the subcutaneous immune globulin preparation is a pooled plasma derivative which is approved for the treatment of primary immune deficiency disease; and the patient has a diagnosis of primary immune deficiency disease.  In this case, Hyqvia is being administered via external infusion pump in the home, and is being used for ICD-10 diagnosis code D80.1 - Nonfamilial hypogammaglobulinemia. This diagnosis does not appear eligible for coverage under Medicare Part B. Therefore, we asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the request for Hyqvia.  We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the request for Hyqvia 30 gm/300 ml. The drug is requested to treat D80.1 - Nonfamilial hypogammaglobulinemia. 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 Hyqvia.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Advair Diskus. 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 Advair Diskus. Advair Diskus is prescribed to treat the enrollee's condition. Advair Diskus is a brand drug on Tier 2 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 Advair Diskus.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Contrave ER. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.   Medicare law excludes certain drugs from Part D coverage. Contrave ER 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 Contrave ER. Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover Contrave ER.   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 Repatha Sureclick. 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 Sureclick 140mg/ml. Repatha Sureclick 140mg/ml is requested to treat the enrollee's condition. Repatha Sureclick 140mg/ml is a biologic drug on tier 3 of the Plan's formulary. There are no available lower tier biologic 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 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 Sureclick.
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 Cosentyx 300 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 Cosentyx 300 mg. The drug is requested to treat psoriatic arthritis. 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 Cosentyx 300 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 us as required by Medicare rules because it did not make a timely decision.  You asked the Plan to cover Forteo, 20 mcg . 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 Forteo 20 mcg injection.   The drug is requested for the ongoing treatment, beyond 2 years, of the enrollee's condition, which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use. The enrollee has received treatment with the requested drug from 7/23/2018 -to 7/31/2020. 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 Forteo, 20 mcg 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 Forteo, 20 mcg.  This decision does not concern the medical necessity of the requested drug. It only establishes if payment can be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

Medicare rules require a Part D Plan to issue a decision regarding coverage within the specified timeframe. If the Plan does not make a timely decision, this is considered a denial. The Plan forwarded this case to us as required by Medicare rules because it did not make a timely decision.  You asked the Plan to cover Novolog. 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 Novolog.    Novolog is requested to treat an unknown diagnosis. The prescriber was asked to state your diagnosis, because there was no prescriber statement of your diagnosis in the case file. The prescriber was also asked to address medical necessity for the requested drug. A response from the prescriber was not received. Therefore, based on the current record, there is insufficient documentation that the requested medication is being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. In addition, an exceptions request based on medical necessity cannot be considered because it cannot be confirmed that the drug meets the definition of a Medicare Part D drug.   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 Novolog 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 Novolog.  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 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 request for Mesalamine DR. The drug is requested to treat ulcerative colitis. You have not indicated why all alternatives required by the Plan would likely not be as effective for the enrollee as the requested drug; and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm to the enrollee. Therefore, an exception to the Plan's coverage criteria is not supported. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that formulary exception criteria are not met.  A Plan must grant an exception for a drug that is not on its formulary if it determines that the requested drug is medically necessary, consistent with the prescriber's statement. Based on a review of the available documentation, our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that formulary exception criteria are not met. Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover Mesalamine DR.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Mycophenolate Mofetil. 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 Mycophenolate Mofetil. The drug is requested to treat polymyositis with interstitial lung involvement, 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 Mycophenolate Mofetil 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 Mycophenolate Mofetil.  This decision does not concern the medical necessity of the requested drug. It only establishes if payment can be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

Medicare rules require a Part D Plan to issue a decision regarding coverage within the specified timeframe. If the Plan does not make a timely decision, this is considered a denial. The Plan forwarded this case to us as required by Medicare rules because it did not make a timely decision.You asked the Plan to 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 request for Xifaxan 550 mg. The drug is requested to treat irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea. 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 Xifaxan.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Butalbital Acetaminophen Caffeine. 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 Butalbital Acetaminophen Caffeine. The drug is requested to treat migraine. For coverage under theprescription drug benefit, Medicare requires that the drug prescribed be used for a medically acceptedindication. Our Physician Reviewer found that the Medicare-approved resources do contain citations tosupport the use of the requested drug for treatment of the noted condition. Therefore, the requested drug isbeing prescribed for a medically accepted indication. A request for medical records was sent to you as ahistory of gastritis and intolerance to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID's) was added at thereconsideration level with no supporting records. Despite the request no records were provided to supportthe intolerance to NSAID's. You have not indicated why all alternatives required by the Plan would likelynot be as effective for the enrollee as the requested drug; and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) orother harm to the enrollee. Therefore, an exception to the Plan's coverage criteria is not supported. OurPhysician 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 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 not met.Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover Butalbital Acetaminophen Caffeine.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Amitriptyline 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 Amitriptyline HCL. The drug is requested to treat depression. 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 Amitriptyline HCL.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Testosterone 1.62% 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 a tiering exception for Testosterone 1.62% gel. The drug is requested to treat your 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 Testosterone 1.62% gel.
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 case to conduct an independent review.   We asked a Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Plan was correct in denying the request for Lidocaine 5% Patch 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 Lidocaine 5% Patch.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Esomeprazole Magnesium. 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 Esomeprazole Magnesium. Our Physician Reviewer needed additional information from you to make this determination. You were asked to address whether the preferred drugs offered by the Plan would: (1) not be as effective as the requested non-preferred drug; and/or (2) have adverse effects. The requested information was not received. Based on a review of the available documentation, our Physician Reviewer?s opinion is that an exception to step-therapy criteria is not 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 Esomeprazole Magnesium.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Imprimis eye drops. 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 Imprimis eye drops is not FDA approved for both safety and effectiveness by checking FDA sources. Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover and provide reimbursement for Imprimis eye drops.  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.