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

You asked the Plan to cover Auryxia. 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 Auryxia. The drug is requested to treat iron deficiency anemia in an enrollee with stage V chronic kidney disease, not on dialysis.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. Therefore, the requested drug is being prescribed for a medically accepted indication.Drugs prescribed for iron replacement for the treatment of iron deficiency anemia are excluded from coverage under Medicare Part D. Therefore, the requested drug is excluded from coverage.Medicare law excludes certain drugs from Part D coverage. Auryxia is one of those excluded drugs because it is a prescription vitamin and mineral product. The record submitted by the Plan does not indicate that they provide supplemental coverage for Auryxia. Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover Auryxia. 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 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. The drug is requested to treat K50.1 Crohn's disease of large intestine, which is an off-label(non-FDA approved) use. The Medicare-approved compendia do not contain any citations to support theuse of the requested drug, as prescribed, for treatment of the noted condition. Therefore, the requested drugis 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 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.
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 Privigen 10%. 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 Privigen 10%. The drug is requested to treat stiff-man syndrome. For coverage under the prescription drug benefit, Medicare requires that the drug prescribed be used for a medically accepted indication. The FDA has granted orphan drug designation for the treatment of stiff-person syndrome. 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. Therefore, the requested drug is being prescribed for a medically accepted indication. The enrollee satisfies the Plan's coverage criteria. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that prior authorization criteria are met.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 citations in the Medicare approved compendia that support the use of Privigen 10% for the diagnosed condition. As a result, Privigen 10% is being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. 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 Privigen 10%.
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. 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 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 peripheral neuropathy, 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

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 provide reimbursement for the Shingrix vaccine received January 22, 2019 and April 3, 2019. 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. You requested reimbursement from the Part D Plan. The Plan did not process the request. The file includes proof of payment for the vaccine for both dates of service. A representative from MAXIMUS Federal verified the vaccine provided was the Shingrix vaccine. The file does not include the National Drug Code (NDC) and the representative at the clinic was unable to provide the information. However, Medicare rules state that when a plan sponsor could acquire missing information, such as the NDC number, by contacting the enrollee's pharmacist, physician, or other prescriber, it should do so instead of relying on the enrollee to provide the information. The Plan may utilize the remainder of the 30-day payment period after approval is granted to obtain missing information in order to determine the amount of reimbursement to be provided. Thus, the Plans reimbursement rules as stated in the Evidence of Coverage have been met, and the Plan should obtain missing NDC information in order to process reimbursement.The Plan's out-of-network coverage rules were followed. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is required to cover and provide reimbursement for the Shingrix vaccine received January 22, 2019 and April 3, 2019.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide reimbursement for the Cetaphil-Menthol Compound and Naltrexone Compound purchased November 5, 2019. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.Medicare Part D does not cover drugs that are not FDA approved. A representative of the pharmacy stated that bulk powder was used or would be used when compounding the Cetaphil-Menthol Compound and Naltrexone Compound. Bulk powders used in pharmacy compounding are not reviewed and approved for safety and efficacy by the FDA. Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover or provide reimbursement for the Cetaphil-Menthol Compound and Naltrexone Compound purchased November 5, 2019. This decision does not address the medical necessity or appropriateness 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 Tadalafil. 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 forTadalafil 5mg Tablet. Tadalafil 5mg Tablet is requested for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia with lower urinary symptoms. The plan has indicated that there are multiple formulary alternatives to treat the enrollee's condition including: alfuzosin ER tablet extended release 24 hr, dutasteride capsule, finasteride tablet, tamsulosin capsule, and terazosin capsule. 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 Tadalafil.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Vitamin D2. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.Medicare law excludes certain drugs from Part D coverage. Vitamin D2 is one of those excluded drugs because it is a prescription vitamin and mineral product. The record submitted by the Plan does not indicate that they provide supplemental coverage for Vitamin D2. Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover Vitamin D2. 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 Dupixent. 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 Dupixent. The drug is requested to treat atopic dermatitis. You have not indicated why all alternatives required by the Plan (Pimecrolimus topical cream and Tacrolimus topical ointment) 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 Dupixent.
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 us as required by Medicare rules because it did not make a timely decision.You asked the Plan to cover Spiriva HandiHaler. 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 HandiHaler.Spiriva HandiHaler 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 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 reviewed this file and determined that there are no citations in the Medicare approved compendia that support the use of Spiriva HandiHaler 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 HandiHaler. 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 Gralise. 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 Gralise 600 mg. Gralise 600 mg is requested for treatment of the enrollee's condition. The diagnosis being treated with Gralise was initially indicated to be restless leg syndrome; the diagnosis being treated with Gralise was later amended to post-herpetic neuralgia. Medical records were requested by Maximus to support the stated diagnosis of post-herpetic neuralgia; however no additional medical records were submitted. However medical records previously submitted to the plan from a patient encounter on December 6, 2019 specifically state that Gralise was started for treatment of restless leg syndrome/leg twitch, 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 restless leg syndrome. Based on the available documentation, 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 Part D drug. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D.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 Gralise 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 Gralise. 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 Repatha SureClick. 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. The drug is requested to treat hyperlipidemia in a patient with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), status post (s/p) NSTEMI, s/p percutaneous coronary intervention/stent placement, and statin intolerance. You have not indicated why formulary alternative, Praluent, 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 Repatha SureClick.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Bydureon BCise. 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. Bydureon BCise 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 Bydureon BCise.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Dronabinol. 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 Dronabinol. Dronabinol is requested for treatment of nausea related to gastroparesis resulting in decreased appetite and weight loss, 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 Dronabinol 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 Dronabinol. 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.