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

You asked the Plan to cover Testosterone 1.25 g-1.62 Gel Packet. 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 Testosterone 1.25g (1.62 Gel PKT). The drug is requested to treat testicular hypofunction. The prescriber has not indicated why two formulary alternatives required by the Plan would likely not be as effective for you as the requested drug; and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm to you. 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 Testosterone 1.25 g-1.62 Gel Packet.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Calcipotriene Cream. 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 Calcipotriene. Calcipotriene is requested to treat the enrollee's condition. Calcipotriene is on tier 4 of the plan's formulary. There are no similar lower tier 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 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 Calcipotriene Cream.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover BCG (tice strain). 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 services and supplies incident to the service of a physician (or other practitioner). In this case, the record reflects that BCG (tice strain) will be supplied from physician and/or office stock supply, and will be billed as part of a physician service. BCG (tice strain) is a type of drug that is not usually self-administered. As a result, the drug as administered in this case appears to be eligible for coverage under Medicare Part B. Drugs which are eligible for coverage under Part B are excluded from Part D coverage by Medicare law. Therefore, it is our decision that the Part D Plan is not required to cover BCG (tice strain). 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

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 Carvedilol, 25 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 Carvedilol, 25 mg tablet.The drug is requested to treat hypertension. The drug is a generic drug on Tier 2 of the Plan's formulary. A request for prescriber statement was sent and not returned. 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 Carvedilol, 25 mg tablet.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Ondansetron. 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. Ondansetron is requested for ongoing chronic use to treat chronic nausea related to diabetic gastroparesis and gastroesophageal reflux disease, 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 Ondansetron 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 Ondansetron. 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 Baclofen. 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 Baclofen. Baclofen is requested for treatment of pain associated with rheumatoid arthritis affecting the vertebrae, 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 Baclofen 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 Baclofen. 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 Estradiol 10 mcg insert as prescribed. 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 Estradiol 10 mcg vaginal insert.Estradiol 10 mcg vaginal insert utilized twice weekly is requested for ongoing treatment of vaginal dryness in this enrollee with a history of estrogen receptor breast cancer. The Plan has indicated that Estring vaginal ring is on their formulary. The prescriber has indicated that due to the enrollee's history of estrogen receptor breast cancer, the use of Estring vaginal ring is not recommended as the dose of estrogen delivered by the Estring vaginal ring is too strong compared to the twice weekly dosing of the requested drug.The prescriber has indicated why all alternatives required by the Plan would likely not be as effective as the requested drug for the enrollee, and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm to the enrollee. Therefore, an exception to the Plan's coverage criteria is medically necessary.Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that formulary exception criteria are metA 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 met. Therefore, the Plan is required to cover Estradiol.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 Budesonide Suspension. 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 Part A or Part B of Medicare for that individual. Medicare Part B may pay for supplies necessary for the effective use of durable medical equipment, including drugs and biologicals which must be put directly into the equipment in order to achieve the therapeutic benefit of the durable medical equipment. Medicare Part B local policy states that a small volume nebulizer and related compressor are covered when medically necessary to administer Budesonide Suspension for the management of obstructive pulmonary disease.In this case, the record shows that Budesonide Suspension is administered through a nebulizer in the home for a diagnosis of J44.9 Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, unspecified and J45.40 moderate persistent asthma, uncomplicated. There is no indication that it is not administered through a small volume nebulizer. It appears that this medication is eligible for coverage under Part B rather than Part D. Drugs which are eligible for coverage under Part B are excluded from Part D coverage by Medicare law. Therefore, it is our decision that the Part D Plan is not required to cover Budesonide Suspension. 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: Favorable

You asked the Plan to cover Pantoprazole DR, 40 mg tablet, 60 per 30 days. 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 Pantoprazole DR, 40 mg, 60 per 30 days.The drug is requested to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease. The Plan limits the amount of the drug to 30 tablets per 30 days. Upon reconsideration, the prescribing physician has submitted additional information. The prescriber has indicated that the number of doses of the requested drug allowed by the Plan has been ineffective in treating the enrollee's condition. Therefore, an exception to the Plan's coverage criteria is medically necessary. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that quantity limit exception criteria are 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 met. Therefore, the Plan is required to cover the requested quantity of Pantoprazole DR, 40 mg tablet, 60 per 30 days .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 Xifaxan. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.In this case, you requested coverage for Xifaxan that was already billed or will be billed at the pharmacy via a patient assistance program (PAP). According to the Plan's Evidence of Coverage (Chapter 7, Section 4.1):When you get a drug through a patient assistance program offered by a drug manufacturerSome members are enrolled in a patient assistance program offered by a drug manufacturer that is outside the plan benefits. If you get any drugs through a program offered by a drug manufacturer, you may pay a copayment to the patient assistance program.- Save your receipt and send a copy to us so that we can have your out-of-pocket expenses count toward qualifying you for the Catastrophic Coverage Stage.- Please note: Because you are getting your drug through the patient assistance program and not through the plan's benefits, we will not pay for any share of these drug costs. But sending a copy of the receipt allows us to calculate your out-of-pocket costs correctly and may help you qualify for the Catastrophic Coverage Stage more quickly.When you decided to use a PAP you acknowledged and agreed that the PAP will be treated as the primary payor with respect to medications that you have selected to purchase through the PAP services. Thus, Xifaxan is not eligible for coverage or reimbursement by Part D. Therefore, it is our decision that the Plan is not required to cover Xifaxan, while you are enrolled with the PAP.Please note: if you are not using the PAP for prescription drug coverage, the request for Xifaxan may still be eligible for coverage and/or reimbursement under the Part D Plan.
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 Estradiol cream. 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 Estradiol cream. Estradiol cream is requested to treat the enrollee's condition. The requested drug is on tier 3 of the Plan's formulary. There are no similar lower tier drugs available 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 Estradiol cream.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Vimpat. 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 Vimpat.Vimpat is requested to treat your condition. The requested drug is a brand drug on Tier 4 of the Plan'sformulary. There are no available lower tier brand drugs on the Plan's formulary to treat your condition.Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for a tiering exception. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion isthat 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 Vimpat.
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.Medicare rules do not require the Part D plan to grant a tiering exception for a brand or biologic drug of the same type (such as brand or biologic drugs when considering an exception for a brand or biologic drug) if the lower tier(s) on the formulary only contain(s) generic alternative drugs. Trulicity is a Tier 3 biologic drug. The lower cost-sharing tier(s) only contain(s) generic alternative drugs. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide a tiering exception for Trulicity.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Ozempic. 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 Ozempic. The drug is requested to treat the enrollee's condition. The drug 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 drug is not eligible for a tiering exception. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that tiering exception criteria are not 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 no citations in the Medicare approved compendia that support the use of Ozempic 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 Ozempic. 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 Jardiance. 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 Jardiance 10 mg tablet. Jardiance 10 mg was requested to treat type II diabetes mellitus. The prescriber cites the risk of amputation with Invokana given the enrollee's history of peripheral vascular disease. The plan has indicated in their denial letter that Farxgia 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 Jardiance.