Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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 Letairis. 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 Letairis 5mg Tab. The drug is requested to treat an enrollee with a single ventricle, double outlet with pulmonic stenosis, status post modified Fontan procedure, which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use. The prescriber sent a statement on 1/17/2020 clarifying the medical history. The prescriber was asked if the patient has pulmonary hypertension. The prescriber said no. Relevant medical records were requested but were not provided. 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 Letairis 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 Letairis. 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 Lyrica. 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 Lyrica. The drug is requested to treat mastodynia, 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 Lyrica 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 Lyrica. 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 case to conduct an independent review.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 needed additional information from the prescriber to determine whether you are using Lidocaine 5% Patch for an FDA-approved use, or a use listed in the Medicare-approved compendia. The requested information was not received. As a result, we could not confirm that the drug is being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, it cannot be covered under the Medicare Part D benefit. An exceptions request based on medical necessity cannot be considered because it cannot be confirmed that the drug meets the definition of a Medicare Part D drug. 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 payment can be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Hydroxyzine 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 Hydroxyzine HCL. The drug is requested to treat the enrollee's condition. A request for prescriber statement and medical records was sent to clarify conflicting information in the case file. No records were returned to support the statement provided. The enrollee does not satisfy the Plan's coverage criteria. You have not sufficiently addressed the Plan's coverage criteria and/or have not indicated why all alternatives required by the Plan would likely not be as effective for the enrollee as the requested drug, and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm to the enrollee. Our Physician's opinion is that neither prior authorization nor prior authorization exception criteria are met.Medicare rules allow a Part D Plan to manage its formulary by requiring prior approval for certain drugs. A Plan must grant an exception to prior approval rules if it determines that the requested drug is medically necessary, consistent with the prescriber's statement. Based on the available documentation, our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that an exception to prior approval criteria is not met. Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover Hydroxyzine HCL.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Ipratropium-Albuterol . 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 Ipratropium-Albuterol for the management of obstructive pulmonary disease. In this case, the record shows that Ipratropium-Albuterol is administered through a nebulizer in the home for a diagnosis of ICD-10-CM Diagnosis Code J44.9 - Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, unspecified and ICD-10-CM Diagnosis Code J44.9 - Emphysema, unspecified. 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 Ipratropium-Albuterol. 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

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Monurol powder 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 a tiering exception for Monurol powder pack. 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 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 Monurol powder pack.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Oxycontin. 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 Oxycontin. The drug is requested to treat chronic low back pain. The prescriber originally submitted medical records from date of service 12/13/2019 which listed all prior medications which have been tried in the past. These records document that the enrollee has tried Lortab, Codeine and Morphine in the past. The prescriber sent a letter dated 1/20/2020 with the request for reconsideration, attesting that the enrollee has also tried and failed Hysingla ER and Xtampza. Relevant medical records were requested with the request for reconsideration but were not provided. 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 Oxycontin.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Mektovi. 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 Mektovi. The drug is requested to treat lung cancer, which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use.The enrollee is a 73-year-old man with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer involving both lungs and chest nodes. His tumor is BRAF V600E mutation positive. He has been treated with Dabrafenib and Trametinib with positive response but with toxicity. His tumor has grown off the drugs. The prescriber requests Mektovi to be given with Braftovi to treat him. The prescriber states a consulting oncologist stated the requested combination would have less toxicity and same or better efficacy.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. There was no peer-reviewed, clinically relevant, medical literature from an approved journal submitted to support this appeal. 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. For Part D drugs used in an anticancer chemotherapeutic regimen, 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 or peer-reviewed medical literature in CMS-approved journals or publications.Our Physician Reviewer reviewed this file and determined that there are no citations in the Medicare approved compendia and there was no peer-reviewed literature from an approved journal submitted to support the use of Mektovi 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 Mektovi. 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 Dalvance 500 mg vial, 12 vials per 28 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 Dalvance 500 mg vial, 12 vials per 28 days. The drug is requested to treat L03.115 Cellulitis of right lower limb of unspecified etiology. The Plan limits the amount of Dalvance 500 mg vial to 4 vials per 28 days. You were asked questions to clarify the diagnosis being treated and/or to provide documentation to support the noted diagnosis. You were also asked questions to address the Plan's coverage/exception criteria. Medical records were requested but were not provided. Laboratory results with wound cultures and sensitivities were not provided. 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 Dalvance.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Vesicare. 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 Vesicare. The drug is requested to treat overactive bladder. You have not indicated why one additional formulary alternative required by the Plan (Oxybutynin or Tolterodine) 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 Vesicare.
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 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.Dronabinol is requested to treat the enrollee's condition which the prescriber has indicated is anorexia and adult failure to thrive. The enrollee has additionally indicated that Dronabinol is prescribed for treatment of chronic pain and nausea. All of the diagnoses noted are off-label (non-FDA approved) uses for the requested drug. 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, 2.5 mg capsule 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 Dronabinol, 2.5 mg capsule. 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 Otezla, 30 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 Otezla, 30 mg tablet.The drug is requested to treat plaque psoriasis. 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 Otezla, 30 mg tablet.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Danazol. 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 Danazol 200 mg capsule. The drug is requested to treat the enrollee's condition. For coverage under the prescription drug benefit, Medicare requires that the drug prescribed be used for a medically accepted indication. Our Physician Reviewer found that the Medicare-approved resources do contain citations to support the use of the requested drug for treatment of the noted condition. Therefore, the requested drug is being prescribed for a medically accepted indication. The drug is a generic drug on Tier 4 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 Danazol.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Trintellix. 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 Trintellix. The drug is requested to treat the enrollee's condition. The drug is a brand drug on tier 4 of the Plan's formulary. For the 2020 Plan year, eligibility for a tiering exception requires the presence of at least one similar lower tier brand drug on the Plan's formulary to treat the enrollee's condition. There are no similar brand drugs on the lower tiers of the Plan's formulary. 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 Trintellix.