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

You asked the Plan to cover Pomalyst. 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 Pomalyst 2 mg capsule. The drug is requested to treat multiple myeloma in relapse, in combination with Darzalex, Velcade, and Dexamethasone, 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 Pomalyst 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 Pomalyst.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 Daliresp. 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 Daliresp. The drug is requested to treat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) NOT associated with chronic bronchitis, 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 Daliresp 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 Daliresp. 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 10% vial. 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 Gammagard 10% vial.The drug is requested to treat chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy. The prescriber has not indicated why all alternatives required by the Plan (Gammunex-C) 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 Gammagard.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

You asked the Plan to cover Dulera Aersol 200/5 mcg/act as prescribed. 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 Dulera Aersol 200/5 mcg/act.The drug is requested to treat asthma. The Plan stated that the enrollee needs to try and fail two formulary alternatives prior to approving a non-formulary drug. In the Reconsideration appeal dated 3/2/2020 the prescriber stated that the enrollee tried and failed Symbicort for a month starting in November, 2019 and Advair for over a month in 2011. The prescriber also stated that the enrollee recently tried Wixela, but that like the Advair it was ineffective. 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 formulary exception criteria are 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 met. Therefore, the Plan is required to cover Dulera Aersol 200/5 mcg/act as prescribed.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Ingrezza. 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 Ingrezza. The drug is requested to treat tardive dyskinesia. The enrollee does not satisfy the Plan's coverage criteria. You have not sufficiently addressed the Plan's coverage criteria and/or 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. 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 Ingrezza.
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. The drug is requested to treat psoriasis. In the request for reconsideration datedFebruary 27, 2020, you stated that the enrollee has tried and failed Clobetasol, Desonide, and Doxycycline. Otezla is not 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 Otezla.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover brand Adcirca, 20 mg tablet. 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 Adcirca, 20 mg tablet.The drug is requested to treat pulmonary hypertension. The prescriber has not indicated why all alternativesrequired by the Plan would likely not be as effective for the enrollee as the requested drug; and/or wouldlikely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm to the enrollee. Therefore, an exception to the Plan'scoverage criteria is not supported. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that formulary exception criteria arenot 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 Adcirca, 20 mg tablet.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Opsumit. 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 Opsumit. The drug is requested to treat pulmonary hypertension. The enrollee does not satisfy the Plan's coverage criteria. You have not sufficiently addressed the Plan's coverage criteria and/or 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. 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 Opsumit.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

You asked the Plan to cover Cosentyx 150 mg/mL. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the request for Cosentyx 150 mg/mL. Cosentyx is requested to treat psoriatic arthritis. The enrollee does not satisfy the Plan's coverage criteria. Upon reconsideration, the prescribing physician has submitted a sufficiently strong statement supported by medical records as to why the required prerequisite agents are inappropriate for the enrollee. 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 Cosentyx 150 mg/mL.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Dexilant DR, 60 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 a tiering exception for Dexilant DR, 60 mg capsule.The drug is requested to treat the enrollee's condition. The drug is a brand drug on tier 4 of the Plan's formulary. There are no available lower tier drugs on the Plan's formulary to treat the enrollee's condition. Therefore, the drug is not eligible for a tiering exception. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that tiering exception criteria are not met.Medicare rules permit a Plan to grant an exception to its tiering structure so long as there is a drug of the same type (such as brand or biologic drugs when considering an exception for a brand or biologic drug) in a lower cost-sharing tier approved for treating the same condition that the higher cost-sharing tiered drug is being used to treat. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that tiering exception criteria are not met because there are no lower cost-sharing tiered drugs of the same type for treating the enrollee's condition. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide a tiering exception for Dexilant DR, 60 mg capsule.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Xarelto, 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 a tiering exception for Xarelto, 20 mg.The drug is requested to treat the enrollee's condition. The drug is a brand drug on tier 3 of the Plan's formulary. There are no available lower tier brand drugs on the Plan's formulary to treat the enrollee's condition. Therefore, the requested 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 Xarelto, 20 mg tablet.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Relistor. 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 Relistor 150 mg. The drug is requested to treat opioid induced constipation. The drug is a brand drug on tier 4 of the Plan's formulary. There are no available lower tier 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 the same type in a lower cost-sharing tier approved for treating the same condition that the higher cost-sharing tiered drug is being used to treat. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that tiering exception criteria are not met because there are no lower cost-sharing tiered drugs of the same type for treating the enrollee's condition. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide a tiering exception for Relistor.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Buprenorphine, 10 mcg hr 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 Buprenorphine, 10 mcg hr patch.Buprenorphine, 10 mcg hr patch is requested for treatment of chronic around-the-clock pain. The Plan has indicated in their denial letter that formulary alternatives include, but are not limited to Belbuca buccal film. The prescriber has indicated that the enrollee has failed Tramadol and Hydromorphone, and states that the enrollee has problems swallowing tablets. 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 Buprenorphine, 10 mcg hr patch.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

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. The drug is requested to treat other chronic pain, not shingles related, 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 5% 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 5% 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: Favorable

You asked the Plan to cover Repatha SureClick 140 mg/mL. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the request for Repatha SureClick 140 mg/mL. The drug is requested to treat hyperlipidemia with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. On February 26, 2020 you sent additional information addressing the Plan's coverage criteria. 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 Repatha SureClick 140 mg/mL.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Lotemax. 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 Lotemax 0.5% eye ointment. The drug is requested to treat recurrent corneal erosion/tearing/persistent post-procedure inflammation, which are off-label (non-FDA approved) uses. Use of Lotemax 0.5% eye ointment beyond two weeks after surgery is not supported in the Medicare-approved compendia. 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 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 Lotemax 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 Lotemax. 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.