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

You asked the Plan to cover Eszopiclone. 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 Eszopiclone. Eszopiclone is requested for ongoing treatment of insomnia. The prescriber has indicated that benzodiazepines should be avoided since the enrollee is also being treated with Xanax as needed. Additionally, the prescriber states that the enrollee has been on the requested therapy since before she started seeing her in May 2017, and that for continuity of care, the requested drug should be continued. 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 Eszopiclone.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

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

You asked the Plan to cover Oxycontin ER. 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 Oxycontin ER, which is not on the Plan's formulary. Our Physician Reviewer needed additional information from the prescriber to make this determination. The prescriber was asked to address whether the drugs offered by the Plan would: (1) not be as effective as the requested non-formulary 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 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 Oxycontin ER.
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 Humira 40 mg/0.5 mL, 4 pens per 28 days. 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 quantity of Humira requested. Our Physician Reviewer needed additional information from the prescriber to make this determination. We asked the prescriber to address why it is medically necessary for the enrollee to have a greater quantity than that allowed by the Plan. The requested information was not received. Based on a review of the available documentation, our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that an exception to the quantity limit criteria for Humira is 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 Humira 40 mg/0.5 mL, 4 pens per 28 days.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

Medicare rules require a Part D Plan to issue a decision regarding coverage within the specified timeframe.If the Plan does not make a timely decision, this is considered a denial. The Plan forwarded this case to usas required by Medicare rules because it did not make a timely decision.You asked the Plan to cover Symbicort. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case toconduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor Symbicort 160-4.5 mcg/actuation.The drug is requested to treat the enrollee's condition. A request for prescriber statement was sent and notreturned. The prescriber has not indicated why all alternatives required by the Plan would likely not be aseffective for the enrollee as the requested drug; and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harmto 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 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 Symbicort.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Diclofenac Epolamine 1.3% 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 Diclofenac Epolamine 1.3% patch. The drug is requested to treat spinal stenosis, 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 Epolamine 1.3% 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, 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 Epolamine 1.3% patch. 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 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 unspecified pain in a patient with right shoulder osteoarthritis. The prescriberwas asked to clarify the enrollee's diagnosis, because it was unclear from the case file. The prescriber wasalso asked to submit medical records to support the diagnosis. A response from the prescriber was notreceived. Therefore, based on the current record, there is insufficient documentation that the requestedmedication is being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. In addition,prior authorization exception criteria are not met.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 needed additional information from the prescriber to determine whether theenrollee is using Lidocaine 5% patch for an FDA-approved use, or a use listed in the Medicare-approvedcompendia. The requested information was not received. As a result, we could not confirm that the drug isbeing prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, it cannot becovered under the Medicare Part D benefit. An exceptions request based on medical necessity cannot beconsidered because it cannot be confirmed that the drug meets the definition of a Medicare Part D drug.Therefore, our decision is that the Plan is not required to provide coverage for Lidocaine 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

You asked the Plan to cover Promethazine 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 Promethazine HCL. The drug is requested to treat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 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 Promethazine HCL 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 Promethazine HCL. 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 Imbruvica, 140 mg tablet, 120 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 Imbruvica, 140 mg tablet; 120 per 30 days.The drug is requested to treat chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). The enrollee is an 84 year old woman with CLL. No other clinical information was submitted for review. The prescriber requests Imbruvica to treat her. The prescriber states starting dose will be 560 mg/day. The drug is available in that strength which would meet the quantity limit of 30 per 30 days. The prescriber states it will be easier to adjust the dose to 3 or 2 tablets per day depending on how she tolerates therapy. He states it will avoid excessive costs to the enrollee and insurance and be more efficient.The Plan limits the amount of Imbruvica to 30 per 30 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 Imbruvica, 140 mg tablet, 120 per 30 days.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

Medicare rules require a Part D Plan to issue a decision regarding coverage within the specified timeframe.If the Plan does not make a timely decision, this is considered a denial. The Plan forwarded this case to usas required by Medicare rules because it did not make a timely decision.You asked the Plan to provide reimbursement for Shingrix purchased on September 26 and December 30,2019, from the pharmacy. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct anindependent review.Regarding reimbursement for Shingrix purchased on September 26, 2019: Medicare rules allow a Part DPlan to apply coinsurance and copayments to covered drugs. In this case, documentation in the recordshows that the enrollee was in the deductible stage when Shingrix was purchased on September 26, 2019,from the pharmacy. During the deductible stage, the Plan requires that the enrollee pay the full cost of Tier2, 3, 4, and 5 drugs purchased in 2019 before the Plan would pay a share of the cost. Shingrix was on thePlan's 2019 formulary and was classified as a Tier 3 drug. The Plan provided documentation showing thatthe Plan provided coverage for this claim, and that the full cost of the purchase in dispute was applied to therequired deductible amount.Regarding reimbursement for Shingrix purchased on December 30, 2019: in this case, the records show thatwhen Shingrix was purchased on December 30, 2019, the claim straddled both the deductible stage and theinitial coverage stage of the Part D benefit. An enrollee is responsible for the full cost of covered drugsuntil the deductible amount of $415 is satisfied. The initial coverage phase requires a 20% coinsuranceamount for this drug and day supply purchased. The Plan documentation also shows that there was $60.15remaining in the deductible phase of coverage. This amount is subtracted from the total approvable cost ofthe drug. This left a remaining total approvable drug cost owed of $104.73. This remaining balance wassubject to the initial coverage stage 20% coinsurance amount. Twenty percent of the remaining balance is$20.95. The total of the two figures owed during each benefit phase (deductible and initial coverage) is$81.10. The record shows that the enrollee was charged an amount that is less than or equal to the requiredcopayment for each phase the claim was processed in. The cost of Shingrix was applied to your yearly trueout-of-pocket (TrOOP) costs.The case record indicates that the Plan provided coverage in accordance with the Part D Plan contract.Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide reimbursement for Shingrix purchased onSeptember 26 and December 30, 2019, from the pharmacy.
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 Dexcom G5-G4 Sensor Kit. 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 Dexcom G5-G4 Sensor Kit is not FDA approved for both safety and effectiveness by checking FDA sources. Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover Dexcom G5-G4 Sensor Kit. 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 Hetlioz 20mg. 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 Hetlioz 20 mg.Hetlioz 20 mg is requested to treat non-24 circadian rhythm disorder. The enrollee does not satisfy the Plan's coverage criteria. There are no formulary alternates available for the treatment of the enrollee's condition. Therefore, an exception to the Plan's coverage criteria is medically necessary. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that 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 met. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is required to cover Hetlioz 20mg.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Lumigan 0.01% ophthalmic drops. 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 Lumigan 0.01% ophthalmic drops. 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.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 Lumigan 0.01% ophthalmic drops.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Trulance. 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 Trulance. The drug is requested to treat unspecified constipation/other constipation, 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 Trulance 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 Trulance. 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.