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

You asked the Plan to cover Forteo. 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 Forteo 600 mcg/2.4 mL. The drug is requested to treat male hypogonadal osteoporosis with more than 24 months of prior use, 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 Forteo 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 Forteo. 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 Gammagard. 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 Gammagard. The drug is requested to treat Hashimoto's encephalopathy and autoimmune thyroiditis,which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use. The Medicare-approved compendia do not contain anycitations 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 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 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 Gammagard for the diagnosed condition. As a result, the drugis not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, it cannotbe covered 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 Gammagard.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. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conductan independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor Otezla.Otezla is requested for treatment of psoriasis involving the scalp which has not responded sufficiently totopical or intralesional corticosteroids. The Plan has indicated that Humira and Enbrel are on theirformulary. You state that the enrollee's mother had a history of melanoma. The enrollee does not satisfy thePlan's coverage criteria. You have not sufficiently addressed the Plan's coverage criteria and/or have notprovided sufficient documentation as to 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 Otezla.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Partially Favorable

You asked the Plan to cover and provide a tiering exception for Desoximetasone 0.25% spray. 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 coverage and tiering exception for Desoximetasone 0.25% spray. The drug is requested to treat atopic dermatitis.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. The following citation in AHFS-DI, a Medicare approved compendium, supports the use of the requested drug for the enrollee's condition: Desoximetasone shares the actions of the other topical corticosteroids and is used for the relief of the inflammatory manifestations of corticosteroid-responsive dermatoses. Therefore, the requested drug is being prescribed for a medically accepted indication.Medicare rules allow a Part D Plan to manage its formulary by requiring prior authorization, step therapy or quantity limits. Desoximetasone 0.25% spray is on the Plan's formulary and is not subject to any of these restrictions. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is required to cover Desoximetasone 0.25% spray.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Testosterone. 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 Testosterone.Testosterone is requested for ongoing treatment of hypogonadism in a 75 year old man. The prescriber hasindicated testosterone therapy was initiated in 2000 and has stated that the diagnosis being treated is lateonset hypogonadism, which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use. The Medicare-approved compendiado not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for treatment of thenoted condition. Therefore, the requested drug is not being prescribed for a medically accepted indicationas defined by Medicare law. As such, an exceptions request based on medical necessity cannot beconsidered because the requested drug, as prescribed, does not meet the definition of a Medicare Part Ddrug. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D for the notedcondition.Of note, you have submitted medical records to the Plan and to the Part D QIC; however there is noadditional statement from the prescriber. As noted, the prescriber was aware that you have been onTestosterone treatment for years and has submitted a diagnosis of late onset hypogonadism. Additionally,formulary exception criteria are not 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 reviewed this file and determined that there are no citations in the Medicareapproved compendia that support the use of Testosterone for the diagnosed condition. As a result, the drugis not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, it cannotbe covered 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 Testosterone.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 Cyclobenzaprine HCL. 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 Cyclobenzaprine HCL 10 mg. The drug is requested to treat chronic pain, erectile dysfunction andsciatic pain, which are off-label (non-FDA approved) uses. The Medicare-approved compendia do notcontain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for treatment of the notedconditions. 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 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 Cyclobenzaprine HCL 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 forCyclobenzaprine HCL.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 Sildenafil, 20 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 Sildenafil, 20 mg tablet.Sildenafil, 20 mg tablet is requested for treatment of secondary pulmonary hypertension associated with pulmonary embolus and obesity, 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 Sildenafil, 20 mg tablet 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 Sildenafil, 20 mg tablet. 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

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 or provide reimbursement for TDAP Vaccine and Administration received at your provider's office on November 19, 2019. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.The Part D Plan covers certain vaccines purchased and/or administered out-of-network. If an enrollee receives a vaccine from an out-of-network provider, the enrollee will generally have to pay the full cost for the vaccine. The enrollee may then submit a request for reimbursement with proof of payment to ask the Plan to pay its share of the cost. In this case, the record shows that you were administered TDAP Vaccine and Administration on November 19, 2019. You submitted a request for reimbursement however, the record does not include proof of payment in full for the vaccine. The Plan's criteria for out-of-network coverage and reimbursement have not been met. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to cover or provide reimbursement for TDAP Vaccine and Administration received from your provider.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen 5-325 mg, 270 per 90 days. The Plan did notgrant 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 requestfor Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen 5-325 mg, 270 per 90 days. The drug is requested to treat pain due tospinal stenosis and lumbar radiculopathy. The Plan limits the amount of Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen 5-325 mg to a recurring 30 day supply. The prescriber has not indicated that the number of doses of therequested drug allowed by the plan would likely be ineffective in treating the enrollee's condition and/orwould likely cause harm to the enrollee. Therefore, an exception to the Plan's coverage criteria is notsupported. 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 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 Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen 5-325 mg, 270 per 90days.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide reimbursement for Oxycontin ER 80 mg purchased March 4, 2020. 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. The amount of the copayment or coinsurance will vary depending on the drug's tier and place of purchase. If an enrollee pays the full cost of a prescription, the enrollee may submit a request for reimbursement with proof of payment to ask the Plan to pay its share of the cost. In this case, you purchased Oxycontin ER on March 4, 2020. You requested reimbursement from the Part D Plan (Reference number 624235520111, Redetermination letter dated April 13, 2020). We made several requests to the Plan to provide the case file and the information required to issue a decision. Those requests were not answered. Your Reconsideration appeal request, did not include proof of payment for Oxycontin ER purchased March 4, 2020. Due to the lack of information and the lack of proof of payment there is not enough information to verify if you paid the correct copayment or coinsurance for Oxycontin ER 80 mg purchased March 4, 2020. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide reimbursement for Oxycontin ER 80 mg purchased March 4, 2020.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Guanfacine ER. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case toconduct an independent review.We asked a Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Plan was correct in denying the request forGuanfacine ER, which is not on the Plan's formulary. Our Physician Reviewer needed additionalinformation from the prescriber to make this determination. The prescriber was asked to address whetherthe drugs offered by the Plan would: (1) not be as effective as the requested non-formulary drug; and/or (2)have adverse effects. The requested information was not received. Based on a review of the availabledocumentation, 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 Guanfacine ER.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Hetlioz, 20 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 Hetlioz, 20 mg capsule.The drug is requested to treat G47.24, Circadian rhythm sleep disorder, free running type. The enrollee does not satisfy the Plan's coverage criteria. The prescriber has not sufficiently addressed the Plan's coverage criteria and/or 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. 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 Hetlioz, 20 mg capsule.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

Medicare rules require a Part D Plan to issue a decision regarding coverage within the specified timeframe. If the Plan does not make a timely decision, this is considered a denial. The Plan forwarded this case to us as required by Medicare rules because it did not make a timely decision.You asked the Plan to provide reimbursement for Hydrocodone/Acetaminophen 5-325mg purchased on February 28, 2020 from your 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 an enrollee pays the full cost of a prescription, the enrollee may submit a request for reimbursement with proof of payment to ask the Plan to pay its share of the cost. The Plan required a $47 copay for up to a 30 day supply of a Tier 3 drug purchased from a standard retail in 2020. A request for reimbursement was submitted to the Plan. In this case, the Plan provided documentation showing that this claim was covered by the Plan at the time of purchase. The record shows that Hydrocodone/Acetaminophen 5-325mg was purchased for an amount that is less than or equal to the required copayment amount. The case record indicates that the Plan provided coverage in accordance with the Part D contract. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide reimbursement for Hydrocodone/Acetaminophen 5-325mg purchased on February 28, 2020 from your Pharmacy.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Diclofenac Sodium 3% Gel. 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 Diclofenac Sodium 3% Gel. The drug is requested to treat osteoarthritis, 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 Diclofenac Sodium 3% Gel 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 Diclofenac Sodium 3% Gel.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.