Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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. The drug is requested to treat small intestinal bacterial 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 Humira. 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 Humira 40 mg/0.8 mL. The drug is requested to treat sarcoidosis, 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 Humira 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 Humira.  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 Epidiolex. 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. The drug is requested to treat G40.219 Localization-related (focal) (partial) symptomatic epilepsy and epileptic syndromes with complex partial seizures, intractable, without status epilepticus, which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use. Medical records from date of service June 23, 2020 were provided to support this diagnosis. 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 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.  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 Latuda. 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 Latuda. The drug is requested to treat Major Depressive Disorder, severe, with psychotic features, 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 Latuda 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 Latuda.  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 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 cancer related pain. 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: Favorable

 You asked the Plan to cover Tymlos 80 mcg/dose. 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 Tymlos 80 mcg/dose, 1.56/28. The drug is requested to treat postmenopausal osteoporosis with multiple fragility fractures. Upon reconsideration, the prescribing physician has submitted additional information. The prescriber states that the enrollee has been on Boniva and Prolia and that despite these treatments, she continued to have fractures. The prescriber states that Tymlos will not be given in combination with Prolia or a bisphosphonate. 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 Tymlos 80 mcg/dose.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Trelegy Ellipta . The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.   Medicare law and Plan rules do not allow tiering exceptions for non-formulary drugs being covered through a formulary exception. The documentation in the record shows that Trelegy Ellipta is currently being covered for the enrollee through a formulary exception. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide a tiering exception for Trelegy Ellipta.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Tymlos. 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 Tymlos. The drug is requested to treat Postmenopausal osteoporosis. 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 Tymlos.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Stelara. 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 Stelara. The drug is requested to treat hiradenitis suppurativa, 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 Stelara 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 Stelara.  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 Diclofenac Epolamine 1.3% 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 a tiering exception for Diclofenac Epolamine 1.3% patch.   The drug is requested to treat the enrollee's condition. Diclofenac Epolamine 1.3% patch is a generic drug on tier 4 of the Plan's formulary. There are no available lower tier generic 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 thesame type (such as brand or biologic drugs when considering an exception for a brand or biologic drug) in alower cost-sharing tier approved for treating the same condition that the higher cost-sharing tiered drug isbeing used to treat. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that tiering exception criteria are not met becausethere 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 Diclofenac Epolamine.
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 Morphine Sulfate ER 20 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 Morphine Sulfate ER 20 mg. The drug is requested to treat chronic low back pain in an enrollee with lumbar spondylosis and lumbosacral intervertebral disc degeneration. You state the enrollee has tried and failed Oxycodone-APAP. Morphine Sulfate ER is not on the Plan's formulary. Morphine Sulfate ER 15 mg and 30 mg oral tablets, Fentanyl patch, Tramadol ER, Nucynta ER, Hydromorphone ER, Xtampza ER and Methadone are on the Plan's formulary. You 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. 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 Morphine Sulfate ER 20 mg.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Saxenda. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.   Medicare law excludes certain drugs from Part D coverage. Saxenda is one of those excluded drugs because it is a drug used for anorexia, weight loss or weight gain. The record submitted by the Plan does not indicate that they provide supplemental coverage for Saxenda. Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover Saxenda.   This decision does not address the medical necessity or appropriateness of the requested drug. It only establishes that payment cannot be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Viibryd. 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 Viibryd. The drug is requested to treat depression. The drug is on Tier 4 of the Plan's formulary. There are no available (branded) 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 Viibryd.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Nuplazid. 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 Nuplazid. The drug is requested to treat hallucinations in an enrollee with G30.9 Alzheimer's disease, unspecified, which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use. You sent a letter dated September 1, 2020 clarifying the medical history. 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 Nuplazid 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 Nuplazid.  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.