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

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Estrace Cream for the 2019 coverage year. 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 Estrace Cream. The drug is requested to treat atrophic vaginitis. The drug is on tier three of the Plan's 2019 formulary. There are no available (equivalent, branded) lower tier drugs on the Plan's 2019 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 Estrace Cream.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Dexilant DR. 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. The drug is requested to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease. Dexilant DR is a brand drug on tier 3 of the Plan's formulary. There are no available lower tier brand 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 (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.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Onetouch Verio test strips. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.Medicare rules state that the definition of a Part D drug includes medical supplies directly associated with the injection of insulin. Test strips, lancets and needle disposal systems are not considered medical supplies directly associated with the delivery of insulin for purposes of coverage under Part D. You asked the Part D Plan to provide coverage for test strips. Diabetic test strips are a medical supply that is specifically excluded from Part D coverage by Medicare law. Therefore, our decision is the Part D Plan is not required to cover Onetouch Verio test strip. This decision does not concern the medical necessity or appropriateness of the requested item. 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 Tacrolimus 0.1% Ointment. 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 Tacrolimus 0.1% Ointment.The drug is requested to treat vitiligo. The prescriber has not indicated why all alternatives required by the Plan (Elidel) 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 Tacrolimus 0.1% Ointment.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Janumet XR. 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. Janumet XR is a Tier 3 brand drug. The lower cost-sharing tiers only contain generic alternative drugs. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide a tiering exception for Janumet XR.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Diclofenac Sodium 1% gel. 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 Diclofenac Sodium 1% gel. The drug is requested to treat unspecified osteoarthritis, right heel and right medial knee pain, which are off-label (non-FDA approved) uses. 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 Diclofenac Sodium 1% gel 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 Diclofenac Sodium 1% gel. 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 Sensipar. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review. Medicare law requires that all drugs and biologicals used in the treatment of ESRD or AKI be included in the ESRD PPS payment bundle, regardless of the reason why the drug is being prescribed and regardless of whether or not the drug is furnished by a dialysis facility. Drugs that are always considered ESRD and AKI-related include access management drugs, anemia management drugs, anti-infectives to treat site access infection, bone and mineral metabolism drugs and cellular management drugs.In this case, Sensipar is being prescribed to an enrollee who has ESRD or AKI and is on dialysis. Sensipar is a class of medication which is always considered ESRD or AKI-related for purposes of the Part B ESRD payment bundle. Thus, the requested drug is eligible for coverage under the Part B ESRD payment bundle, regardless of the reason why the drug is being prescribed and regardless of whether or not the drug is being furnished by a dialysis facility. Drugs which are eligible for Part B coverage are excluded from Part D coverage by Medicare law. Therefore, our decision is the Part D Plan is not required to cover Sensipar.This decision does not concern the medical necessity or appropriateness of the requested drug. It only establishes if payment can be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.You may wish to submit this request to the Medicare Part B carrier.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

Medicare rules require a Part D Plan to issue a decision regarding coverage within the specified time frame.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 Privigen 10%. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case toconduct an independent review.Medicare law specifically excludes coverage for any drug for which payment would be available underParts A or B of Medicare for that individual. Medicare Part B pays for services and supplies incident to theservice of a physician (or other practitioner).We requested additional medical information to determine if criteria for Medicare Part D have been met.We requested confirmation of how and where this drug is supplied and billed. A response to our requestwas not received in the timeframe required for review of this case. Privigen 10% is a type of drug that isnot usually self-administered. There is insufficient information to show that this drug is not eligible forMedicare Part B coverage. As a result, the record does not establish that Privigen 10% is a Part D drug inthis case. Therefore, it is our decision that the Part D Plan is not required to cover Privigen 10%.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.You may wish to submit this request to the Medicare Part B carrier.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

You asked the Plan to cover Shingrix and its administration fee received 6/20/2019 and 8/21/2019 in your physician's office. 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. The case record shows that you received Shingrix vaccine, a Medicare covered vaccine, at your physician's office on 6/20/2019 and 8/21/2019. On 1/2/2020 a representative from MAXIMUS Federal Services contacted your physician's office. A representative of the physician's office stated that payment has been made in full for Shingrix vaccine and its administration. The Plan's out-of-network coverage rules were followed. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is required to cover and provide any applicable reimbursement for Shingrix vaccine and its administration fee received 6/20/2019 and 8/21/2019 at your physician's office, minus any applicable co-payment amounts.Please note: that if the Plan does not agree with our decision, they can ask us to open a case again. We only open a case again if we believe there was a mistake or if there is new information to review. The health plan has to show us the mistake and/or send us the new information. This does not happen often. If we decide to open the case again, we will notify you in writing that the case is being reviewed again and the outcome of the reopening.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Coumadin. 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 Coumadin. The drug is requested to treat the enrollee's condition. The drug is a brand drug on tier 4 of the Plan's formulary. For the 2020 plan year, eligibility for a tiering exception requires the presence of at least one similar lower tier brand drug on the Plan's formulary to treat the enrollee's condition. There are no similar brand drugs on the lower tiers of the Plan's formulary. 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 Coumadin.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Elmiron. 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 Elmiron 100 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. For the 2020 plan year, eligibility for a tiering exception requires the presence of at least one similar lower tier brand drug on the Plan's formulary to treat the enrollee's condition. There are no similar brand drugs on the lower tiers of the Plan's formulary. 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 Elmiron.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Eliquis for the 2019 coverage year. 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 Eliquis. The drug is requested for anti-coagulation in an enrollee with bilateral femoral artery stents. Eliquis is a brand drug on tier 3 of the Plan's 2019 formulary. There are no available lower tier brand drugs of the same type on the Plan's 2019 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 Eliquis.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Vascepa for the 2019 coverage year. 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 Vascepa. The drug is requested to treat the enrollee's condition. The drug is a brand drug on tier 4 of the Plan's 2019 formulary. Eligibility for a tiering exception requires the presence of at least one similar lower tier brand drug on the Plan's formulary to treat the enrollee's condition. There are no similar brand drugs on the lower tiers of the Plan's 2019 formulary. 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 Vascepa.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Favorable

You asked the Plan to cover Veltassa 8.4 g powder packet, 60 packets per 30 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 Veltassa 8.4 g powder, 60 packets per 30 days. The drug is requested to treat hyperkalemia.In the Plan's Redetermination denial letter dated 12/27/2019 the Plan stated that they had approved the non-formulary drug through 12/31/2020, but as 30 packets per 30 days and not 60 packets per 30 days. The Plan wanted to know why the enrollee could not use Vetassa 16.8 gram powder packets. In the Reconsideration appeal dated 12/31/2019 the prescriber stated that the enrollee is Unable to take one packet of 16.8 gram. The prescriber also stated that this is for continuation of therapy and that the dosage is required to prevent hyperkalemia. The requested dosage is within the drugs dosing guidelines which specify a maximum daily dose of 25.2 grams per day. Therefore, 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 the requested quantity of Veltassa 8.4 g powder packets.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Forteo. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conductan independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor Forteo. The drug is requested to treat osteoporosis in an enrollee with a history of fragility fractures.The enrollee does not satisfy the Plan's coverage criteria. The prescriber has not sufficiently addressed thePlan's coverage criteria and/or has not indicated why all alternatives required by the Plan would likely notbe as effective for the enrollee as the requested drug, and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or otherharm to the enrollee. Our Physician's opinion is that neither prior authorization nor prior authorizationexception 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 medicallynecessary, consistent with the prescriber's statement. Based on the available documentation, our PhysicianReviewer's opinion is that an exception to prior approval criteria is not met. Therefore, the Plan is notrequired to cover Forteo.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

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. The prescriber has not indicated why all alternatives required by the Plan (Praluent) 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 Repatha SureClick 140 mg/mL.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Zolpidem Tartrate. 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 Zolpidem Tartrate 5 mg tablet.The drug is requested to treat insomnia. The enrollee does not satisfy the Plan's coverage criteria. There is no documentation that the prescriber has determined that the benefits of the requested high risk medication outweigh the risks for the patient, and the prescriber has discussed the risks and potential side effects of the medication with the patient. 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 Zolpidem Tartrate.