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

You asked the Plan to cover Butalbital-Aspirin-Caffeine tablet. 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 Butalbital-Aspirin-Caffeine tablet. The drug is requested to treat G43.909 Migraine, unspecified, notintractable, without status migrainosus, which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use. The Medicareapprovedcompendia do not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, fortreatment of the noted condition. Therefore, the requested drug is not being prescribed for a medicallyaccepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, an exceptions request based on medical necessitycannot be considered because the requested drug, as prescribed, does not meet the definition of a MedicarePart D drug. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D for the notedcondition.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 Butalbital-Aspirin-Caffeine tablet for the diagnosed condition.As a result, the drug is not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicarelaw. As such, it cannot be covered under the Medicare Part D benefit for this condition. An exceptionsrequest based 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 Butalbital-Aspirin-Caffeine tablet.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.Please note: the request for a tiering exception (lower copayment) for Butalbital-Aspirin-Caffeine tabletwas not reviewed. We cannot consider a tiering exception for a drug for which the Part D Plan is unable to provide coverage. Additionally, the request submitted to MAXIMUS Federal indicates only the Butalbital-Aspirin-Caffeine tablet is being requested at this time. Although the Plan provided documentation that Butalbital-Aspirin-Caffeine capsules have been reviewed, the Reconsideration appeal request shows only the tablets are being requested at this time. If you would like MAXIMUS Federal to also review a Reconsideration request for capsules, you may wish to submit that request at this time.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Sevelamer Carbonate. 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 Sevelamer Carbonate. The drug is requested to treat hyperphosphatemia related to kidney disease on dialysis. The 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 Sevelamer Carbonate.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Nature Throid. The Plan did not grant this request.We received this case to conduct an independent review.A Part D Plan may establish tiered cost-sharing for drugs on its formulary of the same type (such as brandor biologic drugs when considering an exception for a brand or biologic drug). Nature Throid is classifiedas a Tier 1 drug on the Plan's formulary. Tier 1 drugs are not eligible for a tiering exception because theyare already classified as the lowest tier on the Plan's formulary. Therefore, our decision is the Part D Plan isnot required to provide a tiering exception for Nature Throid.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Synthroid. 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 Synthroid 150 mcg.The drug is requested to treat hypothyroidism. The drug is 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 Synthroid.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Otezla. The Plan did not grant this request. Wereceived this case to conduct an independent review.If a Plan maintains a specialty tier, the Plan may design its exception process so that drugs placed in thespecialty tier are not eligible for a tiering exception. Otezla is in the specialty tier. The record indicates thePlan has chosen to exclude the specialty tier from the tiering exception process. Therefore, the Plan is notrequired to provide a tiering exception for Otezla.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Epidiolex 100 mg/mL. 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 Epidiolex 100 mg/mL.The drug is requested to treat G40.909 Epilepsy, unspecified, not intractable, without status epilepticus, 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 Epidiolex 100 mg/mL 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 Epidiolex 100 mg/mL. 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 Motegrity. 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 Motegrity 2 mg. The drug is requested to treat constipation due to neurogenic bowel secondary tomultiple sclerosis, 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 Motegrity for the diagnosed condition. 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 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 Motegrity.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. The drug is requested to treat chronic pancreatitis/nausea with vomiting/unintentional weight loss/acquired total absence of pancreas, 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 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. 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 ZTLido 1.8% 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 ZTLido 1.8% patch. The drug is requested to treat fibromyalgia, sciatica, generalized joint and neuropathic pain, which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use. The prescriber clarified the diagnoses in the request for reconsideration dated 3/18/2020. 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 ZTLido 1.8% 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 ZTLido 1.8% 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 provide a tiering exception for Eliquis. 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 Eliquis 5 mg. The drug is requested to treat atrial fibrillation. The drug is 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 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 Eliquis.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Albuterol Sulfate. 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 Albuterol Sulfate for the management of obstructive pulmonary disease. In this case, the record shows that Albuterol Sulfate is administered through a nebulizer in the home for a diagnosis of asthma. 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 Albuterol Sulfate. This decision does not concern the medical necessity or appropriateness of the requested drug. It only establishes if payment can be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.You may wish to submit this request to the Medicare Part B carrier.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

You asked the Plan to cover Samsca 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 Samsca 30 mg. The drug is requested to treat symptomatic euvolemic hyponatremia due to syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone (SIADH). Upon reconsideration, the prescribing physician has submitted documentation indicating that the enrollee has symptomatic hyponatremia due to SIADH. The prescriber states that the enrollee has had life threatening hyponatremia requiring several hospitalizations. The enrollee satisfies the Plan's coverage criteria. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that prior authorization criteria are met.Medicare rules allow a Part D Plan to manage its formulary by requiring prior approval for certain drugs. Based on the available documentation, our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that prior approval criteria are met. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is required to cover Samsca 30 mg.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

You asked the Plan to cover Ofev 150 mg capsule. 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 Ofev 150 mg capsule. Ofev 150 mg capsule is requested to treat interstitial lung disease/pulmonaryfibrosis. For coverage under the prescription drug benefit, Medicare requires that the drug prescribed beused for a medically accepted indication. Our Physician Reviewer found that the Medicare-approvedresources do contain citations to support the use of the requested drug for treatment of the noted condition -Drugdex (Wells AU, Flaherty KR, Brown KK, et al: Nintedanib in patients with progressive fibrosinginterstitial lung diseases-subgroup analyses by interstitial lung disease diagnosis in the INBUILD trial: arandomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial. Lancet Respir Med 2020). Therefore,the requested drug is being prescribed for a medically accepted indication. On March 17, 2020 you sentadditional information and medical records addressing the Plan's coverage criteria. The enrollee satisfiesthe Plan's coverage criteria. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that prior authorization criteria are 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 reviewedthis file and determined that there are citations in the Medicare approved compendia that support the use ofOfev 150 mg capsule for the diagnosed condition. As a result, Ofev 150 mg capsule is being prescribed fora medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law.Medicare rules allow a Part D Plan to manage its formulary by requiring prior approval for certain drugs.Based on the available documentation, our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that prior approval criteria aremet. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is required to cover Ofev 150 mg capsule.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

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 requestfor Fetzima ER 20 mg, 60 capsules per 30 days. The drug is requested to treat depression. The Plan limitsthe amount of Fetzima ER to 30 capsules per 30 days. The prescriber has not indicated that the number ofdoses of the requested drug allowed by the plan would likely be ineffective in treating the enrollee'scondition and/or would likely cause harm to the enrollee. Therefore, an exception to the Plan's coveragecriteria is not supported. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that quantity limit exception criteria are notmet.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 andnecessary, 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, thePlan is not required to cover the requested quantity of Fetzima ER 20 mg.
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 Livalo. 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 Livalo. The drug is requested to treat hypercholesterolemia. 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 Livalo.