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

You asked the Plan to cover Oxycodone ER 30 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 Oxycodone ER 30 mg tablet.The drug is requested to treat chronic pain syndrome. Oxycodone ER 30 mg tablet is not on the Plan's formulary. 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.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 Oxycodone ER 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 Oxycodone ER. 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 Soliris 300 mg/30 mL 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 Soliris 300 mg/30 mL.Soliris 300 mg/30 mL is requested for treatment of neuromyelitis optica. The prescriber has indicated that the enrollee has a history of optic neuritis and symptomatic cerebral syndrome with NMOSD typical brain lesions, and the enrollee has failed at least two immunosuppressive agents, or at least one immunosuppressive agent and required chronic plasma exchange or intravenous immune globulin. The Plan denied coverage of Soliris 300 mg/30 mL because the enrollee was not antiaquaporin-4 (AQP4) antibody positive (which is what the prescriber indicated).However, the prescriber has submitted laboratory testing from August 12, 2019 indicating that AQP4 antibody was positive. 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 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 met. Therefore, the Plan is required to cover Soliris 300 mg/30 mL as prescribed.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Arnuity Ellipta 100 mcg/inhalation. 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 Arnuity Ellipta 100 mcg/inhalation.The drug is requested to treat the enrollee's condition. The drug a brand drug is on tier 3 of the Plan's formulary. 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 Arnuity Ellipta 100 mcg/inhalation.
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 Atorvastatin 40 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 Atorvastatin 40 mg tablet. The drug is requested to treat hyperlipidemia. The drug is a generic drug on Tier 2 of the Plan's formulary. You do 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 Atorvastatin 40 mg tablet.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Dextroamphetamine-Amphetamine ER. 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 Dextroamphetamine-Amphetamine ER. The drug is requested to treat fatigue related to multiple sclerosis, 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 Dextroamphetamine-Amphetamine ER 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 Dextroamphetamine-Amphetamine ER. 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 Minievelle. 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 Minievelle 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 Minievelle.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Otezla 30 mg and starter pack. 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 Otezla starter pack and 30 mg maintenance dose. The drug is requested to treat psoriasis. The prescriber has not indicated why 2 formulary alternatives required by the Plan (Cosentyx, Enbrel, Humira, and/or Stelara) 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 Otezla.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Oxcarbazepine. 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 Oxcarbazepine 300 mg tablet.The drug is requested to treat Asperger's syndrome, intermittent explosive disorder, severe intellectual disabilities and PICA, 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 Oxcarbazepine 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 Oxcarbazepine. 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 Solifenacin, 10 mg tablet. The Plan did not grant this request. We received thiscase to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor Solifenacin, 10 mg tablet.The drug is requested to treat urinary incontinence. The prescriber has not indicated why all alternativesrequired by the Plan (Toviaz) would likely not be as effective for the enrollee as the requested drug; and/orwould likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm to the enrollee. Therefore, an exception to the Plan'scoverage criteria is not supported. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that formulary exception criteria arenot 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 Solifenacin, 10 mg tablet.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Gralise. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conductan independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor Gralise 600 mg.Gralise 600 mg is requested for treatment of the enrollee's condition which the prescriber has indicated isNOT post herpetic neuralgia. The enrollee states the diagnoses being treated with Gralise are peripheralneuropathy involving the hands and feet, and cervical myelopathy, which are off-label (non-FDAapproved) uses for the requested drug. The Medicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations tosupport the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for treatment of the noted conditions. Therefore, therequested drug is not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. Assuch, an exceptions request based on medical necessity cannot be considered because the requested drug, asprescribed, does not meet the definition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, the requested drug is noteligible for coverage under Medicare Part D for the noted conditions.For coverage under Part D, Medicare requires that the drug must be prescribed for a medically acceptedindication. A medically accepted indication means a use that is approved by the FDA or a use that issupported by one or more citations in Medicare approved compendia.Our Physician Reviewer reviewed this file and determined that there are no citations in the Medicareapproved compendia that support the use of Gralise for the diagnosed conditions. As a result, the drug isnot being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, it cannot becovered under the Medicare Part D benefit for these conditions. An exceptions request based on medicalnecessity cannot be considered because this drug, as prescribed, does not meet the definition of a MedicarePart D drug. Therefore, our decision is that the Plan is not required to provide coverage for Gralise.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 Repatha SureClick 140 mg/mL. 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 Repatha SureClick 140 mg/mL.The drug is requested to treat hyperlipidemia in a patient with coronary artery disease/atheroscleroticcardiovascular disease (ASCVD), status post percutaneous coronary intervention/stents x2, and statinintolerance. The prescriber has not indicated why all alternatives required by the Plan (Praluent) wouldlikely not be as effective for the enrollee as the requested drug; and/or would likely cause adversereaction(s) or other harm to the enrollee. Therefore, an exception to the Plan's coverage criteria is notsupported. 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 Repatha SureClick 140 mg/mL.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Ipratropium-Albuterol nebulizer solution. 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 PartA or Part B of Medicare for that individual. Medicare Part B may pay for supplies necessary for theeffective use of durable medical equipment, including drugs and biologicals which must be put directly intothe equipment in order to achieve the therapeutic benefit of the durable medical equipment. Medicare PartB local policy states that a small volume nebulizer and related compressor are covered when medicallynecessary to administer Ipratropium-Albuterol nebulizer solution for the management of obstructivepulmonary disease.In this case, the record shows that Ipratropium-Albuterol nebulizer solution is administered through anebulizer in the home for a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, unspecified (ICD-10J44.9). There is no indication that it is not administered through a small volume nebulizer. It appears thatthis medication is eligible for coverage under Part B rather than Part D. Drugs which are eligible forcoverage under Part B are excluded from Part D coverage by Medicare law. Therefore, it is our decisionthat the Part D Plan is not required to cover Ipratropium-Albuterol nebulizer solution.This decision does not concern the medical necessity or appropriateness of the requested drug. It onlyestablishes 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 cover Tadalafil 10 mg tablet. 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. Tadalafil 10 mg tablet is one of those excluded drugs because it is a drug used to treat sexual or erectile dysfunction. The record submitted by the Plan does not indicate that they provide supplemental coverage for Tadalafil 10 mg tablet. Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover Tadalafil 10 mg tablet. 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 Xarelto. 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 Xarelto. The drug is requested to treat your condition. The drug is a brand drugon Tier 3 of the Plan's formulary. There are no available lower tier brand drugs on the Plan's formulary totreat your condition. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for a tiering exception. Our PhysicianReviewer'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 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 your condition. Therefore, ourdecision is the Plan is not required to provide a tiering exception for Xarelto.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Vraylar. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conductan independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor Vraylar. The drug is requested to treat major depressive disorder, which is an off-label (non-FDAapproved) use. The Medicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of therequested drug, as prescribed, for treatment of the noted condition. Therefore, the requested drug is notbeing prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, an exceptionsrequest based on medical necessity cannot be considered because the requested drug, as prescribed, doesnot meet the definition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for coverageunder Medicare Part D for the noted condition.For coverage under Part D, Medicare requires that the drug must be prescribed for a medically acceptedindication. A medically accepted indication means a use that is approved by the FDA or a use that issupported by one or more citations in Medicare approved compendia.Our Physician Reviewer reviewed this file and determined that there are no citations in the Medicareapproved compendia that support the use of Vraylar for the diagnosed condition. As a result, the drug is notbeing prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, it cannot becovered under the Medicare Part D benefit for this condition. An exceptions request based on medicalnecessity cannot be considered because this drug, as prescribed, does not meet the definition of a MedicarePart D drug. Therefore, our decision is that the Plan is not required to provide coverage for Vraylar.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 Eliquis. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conductan independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor Eliquis 5 mg.The drug is requested to treat atrial fibrillation. Xarelto is available on the Plan's formulary. The prescriberhas not indicated why this alternative required by the Plan would likely not be as effective for the enrolleeas 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 opinionis 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 Eliquis.