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

You asked the Plan to cover Desvenlafaxine Succinate ER. The Plan did not grant this request. We receivedthis case to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor Desvenlafaxine Succinate ER. Desvenlafaxine Succinate ER is requested to treat bipolar disorder,unspecified, and generalized anxiety disorder, which are off-label (non-FDA approved) uses. TheMedicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, asprescribed, for treatment of the noted conditions. Therefore, the requested drug is not being prescribed for amedically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, an exceptions request based onmedical necessity cannot be considered because the requested drug, as prescribed, does not meet thedefinition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for coverage underMedicare 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 Desvenlafaxine Succinate ER for the diagnosed condition. As aresult, the drug is not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. Assuch, it cannot be covered under the Medicare Part D benefit for this condition. An exceptions requestbased on medical necessity cannot be considered because this drug, as prescribed, does not meet thedefinition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, our decision is that the Plan is not required to providecoverage for Desvenlafaxine Succinate ER.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 Methadone. 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 Methadone. The drug is requested to treat chronic pain syndrome. The enrollee does not satisfy thePlan's coverage criteria. The requested medication is prescribed for as needed administration which is anexclusion criteria according the prior authorization criteria. You have not sufficiently addressed the Plan'scoverage criteria and/or have 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. Our Physician's opinion is that neither prior authorization nor prior authorization exceptioncriteria are met.Medicare rules allow a Part D Plan to manage its formulary by requiring prior approval for certain drugs. APlan must grant an exception to prior approval rules if it determines that the requested drug is medicallynecessary, consistent with the prescriber's statement. Based on the available documentation, our PhysicianReviewer's opinion is that an exception to prior approval criteria is not met. Therefore, the Plan is notrequired to cover Methadone.
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 500 mg tablet.The drug is requested to treat lichen planus, 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

You asked the Plan to cover Dronabinol, 2.5 mg capsule. The Plan did not grant this request. We receivedthis case to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor Dronabinol, 2.5 mg.Dronabinol, 2.5 mg is requested to treat insomnia related to a mental disorder, which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use. The Medicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use ofthe requested 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 Dronabinol, 2.5 mg capsule for the diagnosed condition. As aresult, the drug is not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. Assuch, it cannot be covered under the Medicare Part D benefit for this condition. An exceptions requestbased on medical necessity cannot be considered because this drug, as prescribed, does not meet thedefinition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, our decision is that the Plan is not required to providecoverage for Dronabinol, 2.5 mg capsule.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.Repatha SureClick is requested for ongoing treatment of hypercholesterolemia in this enrollee with knowncoronary artery disease, with statin intolerance. The Plan has indicated that Praluent is on their formulary.The prescriber states that Repatha is the only PCSK9 inhibitor that is indicated for prevention ofcardiovascular events. However, the updated FDA label for Praluent states: PRALUENT is indicated toreduce the risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, and unstable angina requiring hospitalization in adults withestablished cardiovascular disease. The prescriber has indicated that the enrollee has had an allergicreaction to latex, which the prescriber states is a component in Praluent. However it is specifically stated ininformation on the manufacturer's website for Praulent,that the pen is not made with natural rubber latex.The prescriber has not indicated why all alternatives required by the Plan would likely not be as effectivefor the enrollee as the requested drug; and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm to theenrollee. Therefore, an exception to the Plan's coverage criteria is not supported. Our Physician Reviewer'sopinion 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 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 lumbar radiculopathy, thoracic pain, and musclespasms, which are off-label (non-FDA approved) uses. The Medicare-approved compendia do not containany 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 byMedicare law. As such, an exceptions request based on medical necessity cannot be considered because therequested drug, as prescribed, does not meet the definition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, therequested 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 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 Lidocaine 5% patch 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, itcannot be covered under the Medicare Part D benefit for these conditions. An exceptions request based onmedical necessity cannot be considered because this drug, as prescribed, does not meet the definition of aMedicare Part D drug. Therefore, our decision is that the Plan is not required to provide coverage forLidocaine 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 Dronabinol. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the request for Dronabinol 2.5 mg.Dronabinol 2.5 mg is requested for ongoing use for treatment/prevention of anorexia/weight loss in this elderly enrollee with chronic nausea, anxiety, depression, seizure disorder, and osteoarthritis, which are off-label (non-FDA approved) uses. The Medicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for treatment of the noted conditions. Therefore, the requested drug is not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, an exceptions request based on medical necessity cannot be considered because the requested drug, as prescribed, does not meet the definition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D for the noted conditions.For coverage under Part D, Medicare requires that the drug must be prescribed for a medically accepted indication. A medically accepted indication means a use that is approved by the FDA or a use that is supported by one or more citations in Medicare approved compendia. Our Physician Reviewer reviewed this file and determined that there are no citations in the Medicare approved compendia that support the use of Dronabinol for the diagnosed 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 Dronabinol. This decision does not concern the medical necessity of the requested drug. It only establishes if payment can be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Pregabalin, 150 mg capsule. The Plan did not grant this request. We receivedthis case to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor Pregabalin, 150 mg.Pregabalin, 150 mg is requested for treatment of left upper extremity pain due to complex regional painsyndrome type 1, which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use. The Medicare-approved compendia donot contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for treatment of the notedcondition. Therefore, the requested drug is not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication asdefined by Medicare law. As such, an exceptions request based on medical necessity cannot be consideredbecause 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 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 Pregabalin, 150 mg capsule for the diagnosed condition. As aresult, the drug is not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. Assuch, it cannot be covered under the Medicare Part D benefit for this condition. An exceptions requestbased on medical necessity cannot be considered because this drug, as prescribed, does not meet thedefinition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, our decision is that the Plan is not required to providecoverage for Pregabalin, 150 mg capsule.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 Otezla, 30 mg tablet. 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 Otezla, 30 mg tablet.The drug is requested to treat plaque psoriasis. The prescriber has not indicated why all alternativesrequired by the Plan (Humira, Enbrel, Remicade and Stelara) would likely not be as effective for theenrollee 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 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 Otezla, 30 mg tablet.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Ezetimibe. 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 Ezetimibe. The drug is requested to treat hypercholesterolemia. 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 Ezetimibe.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide additional reimbursement for Shingrix vaccine and its administration received at your prescriber's office on October 23, 2019. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.The Part D Plan covers prescriptions filled at an out-of-network pharmacy only in certain limited circumstances. The Plan submitted documentation showing that they approved coverage. They calculated reimbursement based on the total cost of the drug, less your required copayment amount, and less the difference between what the Plan normally pays for the drug and what the out-of-network pharmacy (i.e., hospital or provider's office) charged you. The case record indicates that the Plan provided coverage and reimbursement in accordance with the Part D Plan rules for out-of-network reimbursement. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide any additional reimbursement for Shingrix vaccine and its administration received at your prescriber's office on October 23, 2019.Your complaint that your pharmacy did not have the vaccine is a grievance. A grievance is any complaint or dispute, other than one that involves a coverage determination or at-risk determination, expressing dissatisfaction with any aspect of the operations, activities, or behavior of a Part D plan. Grievance procedures are separate and distinct from appeal procedures. Medicare defines a coverage determination as (1) a decision not to provide or pay for a Part D drug, (2) failure to provide a coverage determination in a timely manner, when a delay would adversely affect the health of the enrollee, (3) a decision concerning an exceptions request, or (4) a decision on the amount of cost-sharing for a drug. (42 CFR ??423.560, 423.564(b), 423.566(b)).Since your complaint involves a grievance, the Part D Plan must review this complaint under the Plan's grievance procedures. Each Part D Plan must provide meaningful procedures for timely hearing and resolving grievances between enrollees and the Part D Plan (or any other entity or individual through whom the Part D Plan provides covered benefits under any Part D Plan it offers). At this time, you should contact the Plan for information on how to proceed with having this complaint reviewed under the Plan's grievance
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Calcipotriene cream. 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 Calcipotriene cream. The drug is requested to treat atopic neurodermatitis, which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use. The Medicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use ofthe requested 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 Calcipotriene cream 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, itcannot be covered under the Medicare Part D benefit for this condition. An exceptions request based onmedical necessity cannot be considered because this drug, as prescribed, does not meet the definition of aMedicare Part D drug. Therefore, our decision is that the Plan is not required to provide coverage forCalcipotriene cream.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 Hydrocodone ER, 15 mg capsule. 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 Hydrocodone ER.The drug is requested to treat chronic pain. The prescriber has not indicated why all alternatives required bythe Plan would likely not be as effective for the enrollee as the requested drug; and/or would likely causeadverse reaction(s) or other harm to the enrollee. Therefore, an exception to the Plan's coverage criteria isnot 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 Hydrocodone ER, 15 mg capsule.