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

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Shingrix Vaccine. 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 Shingrix 50 mcg vaccine. The drug is requested for prevention of shingles. The drug is on Tier 3 of the Plan's formulary. There are no available lower tier drugs on the Plan's formulary to treat your 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 in a lower cost-sharing tier approved for treating the same condition that the higher cost-sharing tier drug is being used to treat. In this case, the Plan covers vaccines as a Tier 3 item only. There are no lower cost-sharing tier vaccines available on the Plan's formulary. Because there are no lower cost-sharing tier vaccines, Shingrix Vaccine is not eligible for a tiering exception. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide a tiering exception for Shingrix Vaccine.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Tymlos. 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 Tymlos. The drug is requested to treat Postmenopausal osteoporosis. 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 Tymlos.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Diclofenac 3% 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 3% gel. The drug is requested to treat actinic keratosis. 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 Diclofenac 3% gel.
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 Morphine Sulfate ER. 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 Morphine Sulfate ER. The drug is requested to treat your condition. A request for prescriber statement was sent and not returned. You do 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 you as the requested drug, and/or would likely cause adverse reaction(s) or other harm to you. 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 Morphine Sulfate ER.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Tremfya. 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 Tremfya 100 mg/mL. 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 Tremfya.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover the Prednisone Compound, Acetaminophen Compound, Simvastatin Compound, Diphenhydramine Compound and Hydroxychloroquine 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. A representative of the pharmacy stated that bulk powder was used or would be used when compounding the prescriptions for the Prednisone Compound, Acetaminophen Compound, Simvastatin Compound, Diphenhydramine Compound and Hydroxychloroquine 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 the Prednisone Compound, Acetaminophen Compound, Simvastatin Compound, Diphenhydramine Compound and Hydroxychloroquine Compound. 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 provide a tiering exception for Myrbetriq. 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 Myrbetriq. The drug is requested to treat overactive bladder. The drug 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 your 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 your condition. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide a tiering exception for Myrbetriq.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Humulin R U 500. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.Medicare law specifically excludes coverage for any drug for which payment would be available under Part A or Part B of Medicare for that individual. Medicare Part B may pay for supplies necessary for the effective use of durable medical equipment, including drugs and biologicals which must be put directly into the equipment in order to achieve the therapeutic benefit of the durable medical equipment. Medicare Part B local policy states that insulin is covered if certain criteria, detailed above, are met. In this case, documentation in the file shows that Humulin R U 500 is being administered through an infusion pump in the home for treatment of diabetes. Humulin R U 500 appears eligible for Part B coverage in this case. Drugs that are eligible for coverage under Part B are excluded from Part D coverage by Medicare law. Therefore, our decision is that the Part D Plan is not required to cover Humulin R U 500. 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.Please contact the Plan for more information regarding coverage of Humulin R U 500 under the Part B benefit.
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.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 to treat the enrollee's condition. The drug is a brand drug on Tier 2 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 Eliquis.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Propafenone HCL ER. 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 Propafenone HCL ER. The drug is requested to treat atrial fibrillation. The drug is a GENERIC drug on Tier 4 of the Plan's formulary. The prescriber stated that you have tried and failed Multaq, Sotalol and Digoxin. The prescriber does not state why all available lower tier alternatives on the Plan's formulary to treat your condition (1) would not be as effective for the enrollee as the requested drug and/or (2) would have adverse effects for you. Therefore, an exception to these criteria is not supported. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that tiering exception criteria are not met.Medicare rules require a Plan to grant an exception to its tiering structure whenever it determines that the higher cost-sharing tiered drug for treatment of the enrollee's condition is medically necessary consistent with the prescriber's statement. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that tiering exception criteria are not met. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide a tiering exception for Propafenone HCL ER.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Febuxostat. 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 Febuxostat. The drug is requested to treat gout in an enrollee intolerant of Allopurinol. 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 Febuxostat.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Lidocaine 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 low back pain, 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 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 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: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Kineret. 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 Kineret. The drug is requested to treat hidradenitis suppurativa associated with SAPHO syndrome, 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 Kineret 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 Kineret. 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 Albuterol Sulfate . The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.Medicare law specifically excludes coverage for any drug for which payment would be available under Part A or Part B of Medicare for that individual. Medicare Part B may pay for supplies necessary for the effective use of durable medical equipment, including drugs and biologicals which must be put directly into the equipment in order to achieve the therapeutic benefit of the durable medical equipment. Medicare Part B local policy states that a small volume nebulizer and related compressor are covered when medically necessary to administer Albuterol Sulfate for the management of obstructive pulmonary disease. In this case, the record shows that Albuterol Sulfate is administered through a nebulizer in the home for a diagnosis of ICD-10-CM Diagnosis Code J40 - Bronchitis, not specified as acute or chronic, ICD-10-CM Diagnosis Code J45.901 - Unspecified asthma with (acute) exacerbation, and ICD-10-CM Diagnosis Code J44.9 - Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, unspecified. There is no indication that it is not administered through a small volume nebulizer. It appears that this medication is eligible for coverage under Part B rather than Part D. Drugs which are eligible for coverage under Part B are excluded from Part D coverage by Medicare law. Therefore, it is our decision that the Part D Plan is not required to cover Albuterol Sulfate.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

You asked the Plan to provide reimbursement for Adacel (TDAP) Vaccine and its administration receivedon September 9, 2019 at your physician's office. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this caseto conduct an independent review.Medicare rules allow a Part D Plan to apply coinsurance and copayments to covered drugs. In this case,documentation in the record shows that the enrollee was in the deductible stage when Adacel (TDAP)Vaccine was received on September 9, 2019 at your physician's office. During the deductible stage, thePlan requires that the enrollee pay the full cost of Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, Tier 4 and Tier 5 drugs purchasedin 2019 before the Plan would pay a share of the cost. Adacel (TDAP) Vaccine was on the Plan's 2019formulary and was classified as a Tier 4 drug. The Plan provided documentation showing that this claimwas covered by the Plan at the time of purchase, and that the full cost of the purchase in dispute wasapplied to the required deductible amount.The case record indicates that the Plan provided coverage in accordance with the Part D Plan contract.Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide reimbursement for Adacel (TDAP) Vaccineand its administration received on September 9, 2019 at your physician's office.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Partially Favorable

You asked the Plan to provide reimbursement for Phenazopyridine 200 mg and Nitrofurantoin HCL 100mg received January 26, 2020 while at an urgent care. The Plan did not grant this request. We received thiscase 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 Phenazopyridine 200 mg and Nitrofurantoin HCL 100 mg received January 26,2020 while at an urgent care. You requested reimbursement from the Part D Plan. The Plan denied therequest on the basis that the National Drug Code (NDC) for each drug was missing and/or invalid. The fileincludes proof of payment for the drugs. Additionally, the Plan contacted the urgent care center andobtained the missing NDCs. The urgent care verified the NDC for Phenazopyridine was 50090-3520-0.This is a repackaged NDC. Medicare rules it reasonable for urgent care and hospitals to provide patientswith repackaged products. The Plan's out-of-network coverage rules were followed for Phenazopyridine200 mg. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is required to provide coverage for Phenazopyridine 200 mgreceived January 26, 2020.The record shows the enrollee initially submitted NDC 47781-308-01 for Nitrofurantoin HCL 100 mgreceived January 26, 2020. Although this is a valid, Part D eligible NDC, the record shows the urgent caredoes not have any record of this NDC being administered. Additionally, the NDC provided by the urgentcare for Nitrofurantoin HCL (53217044414) is not a Part D eligible NDC. Therefore, the Plan's out-ofnetworkcoverage rules were following for Nitrofurantoin HCL 100 mg received January 26, 2020 and thePlan is not required to cover or provide reimbursement for it at this time.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Synthroid. 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 Synthroid 88 mcg. The drug is requested to treat the enrollee's condition. The drug is a brand drug on Tier 3 of the Plan's formulary. There are no available lower tier brand drugs 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 Synthroid.