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

You asked the Plan to cover Mometasone. 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 Mometasone. Mometasone is requested to treat an unknown diagnosis. The prescriber was asked to state the enrollee's diagnosis, because there was no prescriber statement of the enrollee's diagnosis in the case file. The prescriber was also asked to address medical necessity for the requested drug. A response from the prescriber was not received. Therefore, based on the current record, there is insufficient documentation that the requested medication is being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. In addition, an exceptions request based on medical necessity cannot be considered because it cannot be confirmed that the drug meets the definition of a Medicare Part D drug.For coverage under Part D, Medicare requires that the drug must be prescribed for a medically accepted indication. A medically accepted indication means a use that is approved by the FDA or a use that is supported by one or more citations in Medicare approved compendia. Our Physician Reviewer needed additional information from the prescriber to determine whether the enrollee is using Mometasone for an FDA-approved use, or a use listed in the Medicare-approved compendia. The requested information was not received. As a result, we could not confirm that the drug is being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, it cannot be covered under the Medicare Part D benefit. An exceptions request based on medical necessity cannot be considered because it cannot be confirmed that the drug meets the definition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, our decision is that the Plan is not required to provide coverage for Mometasone. 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 reimbursement for Fluoxetine HCL 20 mg purchased on January 22, 2020 at 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 an $8.00 copayment for up to a 30 day supply of a Tier 1 drug purchased from a preferred 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 Fluoxetine HCL 20 mg 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 Fluoxetine HCL 20 mg purchased on January 22, 2020 from your pharmacy.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Divalproex Sodium DR. 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 Divalproex Sodium DR 125 mg. The drug is requested to treat a hospice patient with COPD,unspecified asthma, adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood due to a knownpsychological condition, which are off-label (non-FDA approved) uses. The Medicare-approved compendiado not contain any citations to support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for treatment of thenoted conditions. 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 notedconditions.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 Divalproex Sodium DR 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 Divalproex Sodium DR.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 Nicoderm CQ patch. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.Medicare Part D does not cover non-prescription drugs. We checked FDA approved sources for the drug's classification or determined from other available resources that the drug is a non-prescription or OTC drug. Therefore, Nicoderm CQ patch is not eligible for Part D coverage, and the Plan is not required to cover it under the Part D benefit. 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 cover Albuterol Sulfate neb sol. The Plan did not grant this request. We received thiscase to conduct an independent review.We sent the case file to a Physician Reviewer. We asked this doctor to determine whether the Plan wascorrect in denying the request for Albuterol Sulfate neb sol.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor Albuterol Sulfate 2.5 mg/3 mL.The drug is requested to treat bronchospasm and shortness of breath with history of asthma. Additionalmedical information was requested by the Part D QIC. The prescribing physician was asked to address thePlan's prior authorization criteria and to submit chart notes. The prescribing physician has submitted adiagnosis of acute bronchospasm and chart notes indicate that the enrollee has a diagnosis of asthma. Basedon the information provided, the drug would be eligible for coverage under Part B for the enrollee'scondition. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that the requested drug is not eligible for Part D coverage inthis case.Medicare law specifically excludes coverage for any drug for which payment would be available under PartA or Part B of Medicare for that individual. Medicare Part B may pay for supplies necessary for theeffective use of durable medical equipment, including drugs and biologicals which must be put directly intothe equipment in order to achieve the therapeutic benefit of the durable medical equipment. Medicare PartB local policy states that a small volume nebulizer and related compressor are covered when medicallynecessary to administer Albuterol Sulfate neb sol for the management of obstructive pulmonary disease.In this case, the record shows that Albuterol Sulfate neb sol is administered through a nebulizer in the homefor a diagnosis of asthma. There is no indication that it is not administered through a small volumenebulizer. It appears that this medication is eligible for coverage under Part B rather than Part D. Drugswhich 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 neb sol.This decision does not concern the medical necessity or appropriateness of the requested drug. It onlyestablishes if payment can be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Ozempic 0.25-0.5 mg pen, 12 mg per 90 days. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the request for Ozempic 0.25-0.5 mg dose pen, 12 mg per 90 days. The drug is requested to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus. The Plan limits the amount of Ozempic 0.25-0.5 mg dose pen to 2 mg per 28 days. The prescriber has not indicated that the number of doses of the requested drug allowed by the plan would likely be ineffective in treating the enrollee's condition and/or would likely cause harm to the enrollee. Therefore, an exception to the Plan's coverage criteria is not supported. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that quantity limit exception criteria are not met.Medicare rules allow a Part D Plan to manage its formulary by covering a limited quantity of certain drugs. A Plan must grant an exception if it determines that the requested dosage is medically reasonable and necessary, consistent with the prescriber's statement. Based on a review of the available documentation, our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that an exception to the quantity limit criteria is not met. Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover the requested quantity of Ozempic 0.25-0.5 mg pen, 12 mg per 90 days.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

You asked the Plan to cover Lidocaine 5% patch. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the request for Lidocaine 5% patch. Lidocaine 5% patch is requested to treat back pain. 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 - Krebs EE, Gravely A, Nugent S, et al: Effect of opioid vs nonopioid medications on pain-related function in patients with chronic back pain or hip or knee osteoarthritis pain: the SPACE randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2018; 319(9):872-882. Therefore, the requested drug is being prescribed for a medically accepted indication.The enrollee does not satisfy the Plan's coverage criteria. However, on 04/21/2020 the prescriber sent additional information and medical records addressing the Plan's coverage criteria. The prescriber has indicated why all alternatives required by the Plan would likely not be as effective as the requested drug for the enrollee, and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm to the enrollee. Therefore, an exception to the Plan's coverage criteria is medically necessary. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that 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 met. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is required to cover Lidocaine 5% patch.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Pregabalin. 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 Pregabalin. The drug is requested to treat alcohol-induced peripheral polyneuropathy, which is an offlabel(non-FDA approved) use. The Medicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations to supportthe use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for treatment of the noted condition. Therefore, the requesteddrug is not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, anexceptions request based on medical necessity cannot be considered because the requested drug, asprescribed, does not meet the definition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, the requested drug is noteligible 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 Pregabalin 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 Pregabalin.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 Gamunex-C. 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 Gamunex-C 10 gm/100 mL.The drug is requested to treat hypogammaglobulinemia related to lung transplant, 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. Upon reconsideration, the prescribing physician submitted a diagnosis of unspecified hypogammglobulinemia but chart notes indicate that the enrollee's hypogammglobulinemia is related to lung transplant. 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 Gamunex-C 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 Gamunex-C. 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 Milrinone lactate sol . 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 Milrinone lactate solution.The drug is requested to treat chronic systolic (congestive) heart failure. The prescriber has not indicated (with patient specific medical rationale) 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 Milrinone lactate sol.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Spiriva Respimat. 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 Spiriva Respimat. The drug is requested to treat cough, 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 Spiriva Respimat 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 Spiriva Respimat. This decision does not concern the medical necessity of the requested drug. It only establishes if payment can be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Otezla. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the request for Otezla starter pack. The drug is requested to treat psoriatic arthritis. The prescriber has not indicated why all alternatives required by the Plan would likely not be as effective for the enrollee as the requested drug; and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm to the enrollee. Therefore, an exception to the Plan's coverage criteria is not supported. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that formulary exception criteria are not met.A Plan must grant an exception for a drug that is not on its formulary if it determines that the requested drug is medically necessary, consistent with the prescriber's statement. Based on a review of the available documentation, our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that formulary exception criteria are not met. Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover Otezla.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Sirolimus. 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 Sirolimus 1mg. Sirolimus 1mg is requested for ongoing prevention of lung transplant rejection, which isan off-label (non-FDA approved) use. You indicated that a dire outcome will result if the enrollee does notcontinue the requested medication; however the Medicare-approved compendia do not contain any citationsto support the use of the requested drug, as prescribed, for treatment of the noted condition. Therefore, therequested drug is not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. Assuch, an exceptions request based on medical necessity cannot be considered because the requested drug, asprescribed, does not meet the definition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, the requested drug is noteligible 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 Sirolimus 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 Sirolimus.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.