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

You asked the Plan to cover Lidocaine 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 Lidocaine 5% Patch. The drug is requested to treat occipital neuralgia, 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 Lidocaine 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 Lidocaine 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 Engerix-B. 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 Parts A or B of Medicare for that individual. Medicare law states that Medicare Part B pays for the Hepatitis B vaccine for the prevention of illness for those individuals who are at high or intermediate risk of contracting Hepatitis B. In this case, documentation in the record indicates that the enrollee is at high or intermediate risk of contracting Hepatitis B. Thus, it appears Engerix-B would be eligible for coverage under Part B. Drugs which are eligible for Part B coverage are excluded from Part D coverage by Medicare law. Therefore, our decision is the Part D Plan is not required to cover Engerix-B. 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 additional reimbursement for Sodium Chloride .9%, part of a compound at the pharmacy. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.Medicare rules allow a Part D Plan to apply coinsurance and copayments to covered drugs. If you pay the full cost of a prescription drug out-of-pocket or if you find you have paid more than you expected to pay under the Plan's coverage rules, you can ask the Plan to pay you back. When submitting a request for reimbursement, the Plan requires that you submit your receipt documenting the payment you have made along with your reimbursement request. In this case, you submitted a paid receipt for Autologus Eye Serum 20%. This is a compounded prescription that contains your blood and Sodium Chloride .9%. Medicare does not cover drugs that are not FDA approved. Medicare rules state that only costs for the Part D drug components in a compound may be covered under Medicare Part D. In this case, blood serum is not a Part D drug because it is not an FDA approved drug product or biological. Therefore, only the component Sodium Chloride .9% is an FDA approved part of a compound in this case. The Plan has processed the portion of the claim correctly for Sodium Chloride .9%. You are responsible for the difference between the cash price paid and the Plan's negotiated contract rate for Sodium Chloride .9%, part of a compound which is the difference between the cash price paid and the Plan's negotiated contract rate. The Plan stated the pharmacy is a network pharmacy. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide additional reimbursement for Sodium Chloride .9%, part of a compound at the pharmacy.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Azathioprine. 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 Azathioprine 50 mg. The drug is requested to treat osteoarthritis, other specific systemic involvement of connective tissue, and fibromyalgia, 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 Azathioprine 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 Azathioprine. 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 Xifaxan. 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 Xifaxan.Xifaxan is requested for ongoing episodic use for treatment of recurrent bacterial small bowel overgrowth, 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 Xifaxan 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 Xifaxan. 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 Lenvima. 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 Lenvima 24 mg daily dose capsule therapy pack. The drug is requested to treat metastatic acinic cell salivary gland carcinoma, 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. 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 Lenvima 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 Lenvima.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% Ointment. 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 Lidocaine 5% ointment. The drug is requested to treat rheumatoid arthritis pain, 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 Lidocaine 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 Lidocaine. 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 Procrit. 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 Procrit.Procrit is requested for treatment of anemia associated with a large decubitus ulcer associated with recurrent sepsis, 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 Procrit 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 Procrit. 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 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 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 nebulizer solution for the management of obstructive pulmonary disease. In this case, the record shows that Ipratropium-Albuterol nebulizer solution is administered through a nebulizer in the home for a diagnosis of ICD-10 J44.9 (Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 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 nebulizer solution.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.Please note: The Plan provided documentation that this request has been approved under the enhanced portion of your benefit. You may wish to submit this request to the enhanced portion of your benefit and/or the Medicare Part B carrier.
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.We sent the case file to a Physician Reviewer. We asked this doctor to determine whether the Plan was correct in denying the request for Ipratropium Albuterol. Our Physician Reviewer noted that Ipratropium Albuterol was requested for an enrollee with a diagnosis of ICD-10-CM Diagnosis Code J44.9 - Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, unspecified.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. 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.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

You asked the Plan to cover Sirolimus. 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 Sirolimus 1 mg. Sirolimus 1 mg is requested for prevention of renal transplant rejection. The Plan concluded that Sirolimus 1 mg may be covered under Medicare Part B; however the enrollee did not have a Medicare covered transplant. As such, Sirolimus is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part B. The enrollee satisfies the Plan's coverage criteria. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that prior authorization criteria are met.Medicare law specifically excludes coverage for any drug under the Part D program for which payment would be available under Parts A or B of Medicare for that individual. Coverage is available under Medicare Part B for prescription drugs used in immunosuppressive therapy furnished to a beneficiary who has received an organ transplant, provided the transplant was paid for by Medicare Part A. The case record indicates that Sirolimus is needed for a kidney transplant. In this case, we researched approved Medicare resources and found that the enrollee was not enrolled in Medicare at the time of the transplant. Therefore, it appears that Sirolimus is eligible for Part D coverage. We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine if other Part D coverage criteria are met.Please note that if the Plan does not agree with our decision, they can ask us to open a case again. We only open a case again if we believe there was a mistake or if there is new information to review. The health plan has to show us the mistake and/or send us the new information. This does not happen often. If we decide to open the case again, we will notify you in writing that the case is being reviewed again and the outcome of the reopening.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Exemestane. 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 Exemestane. The drug is requested to treat breast cancer.The enrollee is a 66 year old woman with hormone receptor positive, HER2 negative stage IA breast cancer. She was treated with surgery and radiation and started on adjuvant Anastrozole. She has significant bilateral knee pain that is attributed to the drug. She would like to come off Anastrozole and try a different therapy. You request Exemestane to treat her. A journal article relating to Letrozole rather than Exemestane was submitted in support of the request.Per the NCCN compendium, Exemestane is indicated for adjuvant endocrine therapy for women* with hormone receptor-positive clinical stage T1-3, N0-1, M0 disease:- As first-line therapy for postmenopausal women for 5 years (consider for an additional 3-5 years thereafter). The requested use would be continuation of an initial 5 years of adjuvant therapy and therefore meets this recommendation and is a medically accepted use.The formulary alternative on a lower tier is Letrozole. The article submitted supports that Letrozole is a viable alternative. You have not indicated that Letrozole would be less effective or more toxic than Exemestane.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 on Tier 4 of the Plan's formulary. You have not indicated why all eligible 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. 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 Exemestane.