Persius/hicric huggingface dataset:
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 conduct an independent review. We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the request for Stelara 90 mg/mL. The drug is requested to treat Hidradenitis suppurativa, 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 Stelara 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 Stelara.  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 Diazepam. 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 Diazepam. The drug is requested for intravaginal use to treat pelvic floor muscle spasm, 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 Diazepam 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 Diazepam.  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 Alecensa. 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 Alecensa 100 mg; 240/30. The drug is requested to treat non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The enrollee is an 85 year old man with metastatic NSCLC involving bones, adrenal gland, and nodes. He has been treated with Abraxane, Avastin, Carboplatin, and Tecentriq.  Guardant360 testing identified an ALK R1275Q mutation and other mutations.  The report is not submitted for review. The office notes of 8/28/20 states the results are not actionable. The prescriber requests Alecensa to treat him. He states it will be monotherapy and the chemotherapy will be stopped.   The mutation is not noted to be a rearrangement and Guardant 360 is not an FDA approved test for this agent.  Therefore the requested use does not meet the plan's prior authorization rules. The enrollee does not satisfy the Plan's coverage criteria. 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 Alecensa.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

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

You asked the Plan to cover Nexplanon. 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 Nexplanon. The drug is requested to treat irregular monthly menstruation, to suppress menstruation cycles/flow, 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 Nexplanon 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 Nexplanon.  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 us as required by Medicare rules because it did not make a timely decision.  You asked the Plan to cover Proctozone-HC 2.5% Cream. 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 Proctozone-HC 2.5%. Proctozone-HC 2.5% is requested to treat an unknown diagnosis. The prescriber was asked to state the enrollee's diagnosis, because there was no prescriber statement of the enrollee's diagnosis in the case file. The prescriber was also asked to address medical necessity for the requested drug. A response from the prescriber was not received. Therefore, based on the current record, there is insufficient documentation that the requested medication is being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. In addition, an exceptions request based on medical necessity cannot be considered because it cannot be confirmed that the drug meets the definition of a Medicare Part D drug.  For coverage under Part D, Medicare requires that the drug must be prescribed for a medically accepted indication. A medically accepted indication means a use that is approved by the FDA or a use that is supported by one or more citations in Medicare approved compendia.   Our Physician Reviewer reviewed this file and determined that there are no citations in the Medicare approved compendia that support the use of Proctozone-HC 2.5% Cream 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 Proctozone-HC 2.5% Cream.  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 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 chronic back pain with sciatica. 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.   Drugdex cites the following medical reference in the Comparative Efficacy section of their Lidocaine monograph in the discussion of chronic back pain, and chronic osteoarthritis of the hip and knee, for multiple drugs: Krebs EE, Gravely A, Nugent S, et al: Effect of opioid vs nonopioid medications on pain-related function in patients with chronic back pain or hip or knee osteoarthritis pain: the SPACE randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2018; 319(9):872-882. The study demonstrated that among patients with chronic back pain or hip or knee osteoarthritis pain, treatment with opioids compared with nonopioid medications did not result in significantly better pain-related function over 12 months, and that opioids caused significantly more medication-related adverse symptoms than nonopioid medications.   The noted reference states that topical Lidocaine was included in the nonopioid prescribing strategy. 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 Lidocaine 5% patch for the diagnosed condition. As a result, Lidocaine 5% patch 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 Lidocaine 5% patch.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Nuplazid. 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 Nuplazid. The drug is requested to treat treatment of hallucinations and delusions (psychosis) associated with dementia with Lewy bodies, 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 Nuplazid 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 Nuplazid.  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 Tetrabenazine. 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 Tetrabenazine. The drug is requested to treat right sided hemichorea-hemiballism, 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 Tetrabenazine 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 Tetrabenazine.  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 Lidocaine-Gabapentin-Amitriptyline-Ketoprofen-Baclofen Compound. 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 for both safety and effectiveness. We determined that Lidocaine-Gabapentin-Amitriptyline-Ketoprofen-Baclofen Compound is not FDA approved for both safety and effectiveness by checking FDA sources. Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover Lidocaine-Gabapentin-Amitriptyline-Ketoprofen-Baclofen Compound.  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

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 Vimpat 100 mg. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.   If a Plan maintains a specialty tier, the Plan may design its exception process so that drugs placed in the specialty tier are not eligible for a tiering exception. Vimpat 100 mg is in the specialty tier. The record indicates the Plan has chosen to exclude the specialty tier from the tiering exception process. Therefore, the Plan is not required to provide a tiering exception for Vimpat 100 mg.  Please note: Vimpat 50 mg tablets are available on tier 4.
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 Pazeo ophthalmic solution 0.7%. 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 Pazeo 0.7%. The drug is requested to treat the enrollee's condition. A request for prescriber statement was sent and not returned. 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 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 Pazeo ophthalmic solution 0.7%.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Gamunex-C. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.   We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the request for Gamunex-C. The drug is requested to treat G61.89, Other inflammatory polyneuropathies, 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 Gamunex-C for the diagnosed condition. As a result, the drug is not being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, it cannot be covered under the Medicare Part D benefit for this condition. An exceptions request based on medical necessity cannot be considered because this drug, as prescribed, does not meet the definition of a Medicare Part D drug. Therefore, our decision is that the Plan is not required to provide coverage for Gamunex-C.  This decision does not concern the medical necessity of the requested drug. It only establishes if payment can be made under the Medicare Part D benefit.