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

You asked the Plan to cover Cyclophosphamide. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this caseto conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor Cyclophosphamide. The drug is requested to treat polyarteritis nodosa, which is an off-label (non-FDAapproved) use. The Medicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of therequested 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 Cyclophosphamide for the diagnosed condition. As a result, thedrug 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 forCyclophosphamide.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 provide a tiering exception for Velphoro. The Plan did not grant this request. Wereceived 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 a tiering exception for Velphoro. The drug is requested to treat renal failure-associatedhyperphosphatemia, in an enrollee receiving renal dialysis. Velphoro is a brand drug on Tier 4 of the Plan'sformulary. There are no available lower tier brand drugs of the same type on the Plan's formulary to treatthe enrollee's condition. Therefore, the drug is not eligible for a tiering exception. Our Physician Reviewer'sopinion 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 Velphoro.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Rituxan. 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 Rituxan 500 mg. The drug is requested to treat Fibrillary glomerulonephritis, 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 Rituxan 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 Rituxan. 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 Eszopiclone. 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 Eszopiclone.Eszopiclone is requested for treatment of insomnia. The Plan indicated in their denial letter that Belsomra ison their formulary. You had indicated that the enrollee had failed multiple alternatives; however initiallydid not note a trial of Belsomra. At the time of the request for reconsideration, the prescriber's statementnow included that the enrollee also failed Belsomra. Additional information was requested regarding thetrial of Belsomra, and medical record documentation of the trial/failure of Belsomra was specificallyrequested; however no medical records were provided with your response to the request for additionalinformation. You have not provided sufficient documentation that all alternatives required by the Planwould likely not be as effective for the enrollee as the requested drug; and/or would likely cause adversereaction(s) or other harm to the enrollee. Therefore, an exception to the Plan's coverage criteria is notsupported. 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 Eszopiclone.
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 usas required by Medicare rules because it did not make a timely decision.You asked the Plan to cover Vagifem. 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 Vagifem.Vagifem is requested to treat postmenopausal atrophic vaginitis. You were asked questions to clarify thediagnosis being treated and/or to provide documentation to support the noted diagnosis. You were alsoasked questions to address the Plan's coverage/formulary exception criteria. A response from you was notreceived. Therefore, based on the current record, there is insufficient documentation to support anexception to the Plan's coverage criteria.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 Vagifem.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Atacand. 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 Atacand.Atacand is requested to treat an unknown diagnosis. The prescriber was asked to state your diagnosis,because there was no prescriber statement of your diagnosis in the case file. The prescriber was also askedto 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 isbeing prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. In addition, an exceptionsrequest based on medical necessity cannot be considered because it cannot be confirmed that the drugmeets the definition of a Medicare Part D drug.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 Atacand 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 Atacand.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

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 usas required by Medicare rules because it did not make a timely decision.You asked the Plan to cover Ubrelvy 50 mg, 10 per 30 days. The Plan did not grant this request. Wereceived 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 Ubrelvy 50 mg (10 per 30 days). The drug is requested to treat acute Migraines. The Plan limits theamount of Ubrelvy 50 mg to 8 tablets per 30 days. You stated that you wish to withdraw the appeal for 10tablets per 30 days and instead write for 8 tablets per 30 days. You have not indicated that the number ofdoses of the requested drug allowed by the Plan would likely be ineffective in treating the enrollee'scondition and/or would likely cause harm to the enrollee. Therefore, an exception to the Plan's coveragecriteria is not supported. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that quantity limit exception criteria are notmet.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 Ubrelvy 50 mg, 10 per 30 days.Please note, the Plan has approved an off formulary exception for Ubrelvy 50 mg, 8 per 30 days.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

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 and provide reimbursement for Shingrix Vaccine received at your physician's office on January 27, 2020. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.The Plan covers prescriptions filled at an out-of-network pharmacy only in certain limited circumstances. In this case, you received the Shingrix Vaccine on January 27, 2020 at your physician's office. You then submitted a request to the Plan for reimbursement along with proof of payment. The Plan's out-of-network coverage rules were followed. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is required to provide applicable reimbursement for Shingrix Vaccine received at your physician's office on January 27, 2020.
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 conductan independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor Stelara. The drug is requested to treat psoriasis. The enrollee does not satisfy the Plan's coveragecriteria. The prescriber has not sufficiently addressed the Plan's coverage criteria and/or has not indicatedwhy all alternatives required by the Plan would likely not be as effective for the enrollee as the requesteddrug, and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm to the enrollee. Our Physician's opinion isthat 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. APlan 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 Phycisian Reviewer's opinion is that an exception to prior approval criteria is not met. Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover Stelara.
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 a tiering exception for Invokana. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.Medicare rules do not require the Part D plan to grant a tiering exception for a brand or biologic drug of the same type (such as brand or biologic drugs when considering an exception for a brand or biologic drug) if the lower tier(s) on the formulary only contain(s) generic alternative drugs. Invokana is a Tier 3 brand drug. The lower cost-sharing tier(s) only contain(s) generic alternative drugs. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide a tiering exception for Invokana.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Enbrel. 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 Enbrel Sureclick 50 mg/mL.The drug is requested to treat polyarteritis nodosa, 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 Enbrel 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 Enbrel. 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 usas required by Medicare rules because it did not make a timely decision.You asked the Plan to cover Xultophy. 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 Xultophy. The drug is requested to treat E11.9 Type 2 diabetes mellitus without complications. Forcoverage under the prescription drug benefit, Medicare requires that the drug prescribed be used for amedically accepted indication. Our Physician Reviewer found that the Medicare-approved resources docontain citations to support the use of the requested drug for treatment of the noted condition. Therefore,the requested drug is being prescribed for a medically accepted indication. You state the enrollee has triedand failed Lantus Solostar and Basaglar. Xultophy is not on the Plan's formulary. You have not indicatedwhy all alternatives required by the Plan would likely not be as effective for the enrollee as the requesteddrug; and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm to the enrollee. Therefore, an exceptionto the Plan's coverage criteria is not supported. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that formularyexception 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 Xultophy.
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 Benicar. 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 Benicar.Benicar is requested to treat hypertension. Benicar is not on the Plan's formulary. You were asked questions to clarify the diagnosis being treated and to provide documentation to support the noted diagnosis. You were also asked questions to address the Plan's coverage/exception criteria. A response from you was not received. Therefore, based on the current record, there is insufficient documentation to support an exception to the Plan's coverage criteria.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 Benicar.
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 a tiering exception for Repatha Sureclick. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.Medicare rules do not require the Part D plan to grant a tiering exception for a brand or biologic drug of the same type (such as brand or biologic drugs when considering an exception for a brand or biologic drug) if the lower tier(s) on the formulary only contain(s) generic alternative drugs. Repatha Sureclick is a Tier 3 biologic drug. The lower cost-sharing tier(s) only contain(s) generic alternative drugs. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide a tiering exception for Repatha Sureclick.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Xeljanz. 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 Xeljanz 5 mg. The drug is requested to treat Lichen planopilaris, which is an off-label (non-FDAapproved) use. The Medicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations to support the use of therequested 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 Xeljanz for the diagnosed condition. As a result, the drug is notbeing 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 Xeljanz.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.