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

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Myrbetriq ER. The Plan did not grant this request. Wereceived this case to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor a tiering exception for Myrbetriq ER.Myrbetriq ER is requested to treat the enrollee's condition. The requested drug is a brand drug on Tier 4 ofthe Plan's formulary. There are no available lower tier brand drugs on the Plan's formulary to treat theenrollee's condition. Therefore, the requested drug is not eligible for a tiering exception. Our PhysicianReviewer'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 thesame type (such as brand or biologic drugs when considering an exception for a brand or biologic drug) in alower cost-sharing tier approved for treating the same condition that the higher cost-sharing tiered drug isbeing used to treat. Our Physician Reviewer's opinion is that tiering exception criteria are not met becausethere are no lower cost-sharing tiered drugs of the same type for treating the enrollee's condition.Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide a tiering exception for Myrbetriq ER.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Armodafinil. 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 Armodafinil 150 mg tab. The drug is requested to treat fatigue due to multiple sclerosis, 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 Armodafinil 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 Armodafinil. 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 Dupixent 300 mg/2 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 Dupixent 300 mg/2 mL.The drug is requested to treat L28.1 Prurigo nodularis in an enrollee with psoriasis, 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 Dupixent 300 mg/2 mL 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 Dupixent 300 mg/2 mL. 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 Latuda, 20 mg tablet. 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 Latuda, 20 mg tablet.The drug is requested to treat F31.12, Bipolar disorder, current episode manic without psychotic features, moderate. 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 Latuda, 20 mg tablet.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to provide a tiering exception for Lumigan 0.01% solution. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.Medicare law and Plan rules do not allow tiering exceptions for non-formulary drugs being covered through a formulary exception. The documentation in the record shows that Lumigan 0.01% solution is currently being covered for the enrollee through a formulary exception. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide a tiering exception for Lumigan 0.01% solution.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Lyrica, 25 mg capsule. 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 Lyrica, 25 mg capsule, 30/30.The drug is requested to treat diabetic peripheral neuropathy. 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 Lyrica, 25 mg capsule.Please note: the request for a tiering exception (lower copayment) for Lyrica, 25 mg capsule was not reviewed. We cannot consider a tiering exception for a drug for which the Part D Plan is unable to provide coverage.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Piqray. 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 Piqray 150 mg; 56/28. The drug is requested to treat metastatic breast cancer in combination with Letrozole, which is an off-label (non-FDA approved) use. The enrollee is a 74 year old woman with hormone receptor, HER2 negative metastatic breast cancer involving lungs and bones. She has been treated with Eribulin and unspecified chemotherapy. The prescriber states she has progressed on hormonal therapy and does not specify any details. Her tumor has a PIK3CA mutation by Foundation One CDx which is an FDA approved companion diagnostic per the FDA website. The prescriber requests Piqray to be given with Letrozole to treat her. The indicated and supported use of the drug is in combination with Fulvestrant. 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. There was no peer-reviewed, clinically relevant, medical literature from an approved journal submitted to support this appeal. 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. For Part D drugs used in an anticancer chemotherapeutic regimen, 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 or peer-reviewed medical literature in CMS-approved journals or publications. Our Physician Reviewer reviewed this file and determined that there are no citations in the Medicare approved compendia and there was no peer-reviewed literature from an approved journal submitted to support the use of Piqray 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 theMedicare 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 Piqray. 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 provide reimbursement for Ipratropium Spray 0.06% (Sodium Chloride), Prednisone 20 mg, Guaifenesin ER 600 mg, Loratadine (Claritin) 10 mg and Benzonatate 200 mg purchased on February 28, 2020 at your pharmacy. The Plan did not grant this request. We received this case to conduct an independent review.Ipratropium Spray 0.06% (Sodium Chloride) and Prednisone:Medicare rules allow a Part D Plan to apply coinsurance and copayments to covered drugs. If an enrollee pays the full cost of a prescription, the enrollee may submit a request for reimbursement with proof of payment to ask the Plan to pay its share of the cost. The Plan required a $0 copay for up to a 30 day supply of a Tier 1 and Tier 2 drug purchased from a preferred retail pharmacy in 2020. A request for reimbursement was submitted to the Plan. In this case, the Plan provided documentation showing that this claim was covered by the Plan at the time of purchase. The record shows that Ipratropium Spray 0.06% (Sodium Chloride and Prednisone 20 mg were purchased for an amount that is less than or equal to the required copayment amount. The case record indicates that the Plan provided coverage in accordance with the Part D contract. Therefore, our decision is the Plan is not required to provide reimbursement for Ipratropium Spray 0.06% (Sodium Chloride) and Prednisone 20 mg purchased on February 28, 2020 at your pharmacy.Benzonatate 200 mg:Medicare law excludes certain drugs from Part D coverage. Benzonatate is one of those excluded drugs because it is a drug used for the symptomatic relief of coughs and colds. The record submitted by the Plan does not indicate that they provide supplemental coverage for Benzonatate. Therefore, the Plan is not required to cover or provide reimbursement for Benzonatate 200 mg purchased February 28, 2020 at your pharmacy. 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.Loratadine (Claritin) 10 mg and Guaifenesin ER 600 mg:Medicare Part D does not cover non-prescription drugs. We checked FDA approved sources for the drug's classification or determined from other available resources that the drug is a non-prescription or OTC drug. Therefore, Loratadine (Claritin) 10 mg and Guaifenesin ER 600 mg purchased February 28, 2020 at your pharmacy are not eligible for Part D coverage, and the Plan is not required to cover or provide reimbursement for them under the Part D benefit. 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 provide a tiering exception for Multaq. 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 Multaq 400 mg tablet.The drug is requested to treat paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Multaq 400 mg tablet 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 Multaq.
Appeal type: Prescription Drug
Decision: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Azathioprine. 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 Azathioprine 50 mg. The drug is requested to treat autoimmune interstitial lung disease, 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 Azathioprine 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 Azathioprine. 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 Multaq, 400 mg tablet, 60 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 Multaq, 400 mg tablet, 60 per 30 days.The drug is requested to treat supraventricular tachycardia and ventricular tachycardia, 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 conditions.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 Multaq, 400 mg tablet, 60 per 30 days for the diagnosed conditions. 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 these conditions. 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 Multaq, 400 mg tablet, 60 per 30 days. 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 Nystatin-Triamcinolone 100000-0.1unit/gm 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 Nystatin-Triamcinolone 100000-0.1unit/gm cream. Nystatin-Triamcinolone 100000-0.1unit/gm cream 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 needed additional information from the prescriber to determine whether the enrollee is using Nystatin-Triamcinolone 100000-0.1unit/gm cream for an FDA-approved use, or a use listed in the Medicare-approved compendia. The requested information was not received. As a result, we could not confirm that the drug is being prescribed for a medically accepted indication as defined by Medicare law. As such, it cannot be covered under the Medicare Part D benefit. 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. Therefore, our decision is that the Plan is not required to provide coverage for Nystatin-Triamcinolone 100000-0.1unit/gm 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: Unfavorable

You asked the Plan to cover Ajovy 225 mg/1.5 mL. The Plan did not grant this request. We received thiscase to conduct an independent review.We asked our Physician Reviewer to determine whether the Part D Plan was correct in denying the requestfor Ajovy 225 mg/1.5 ml subcutaneous solution.The drug is requested to treat chronic migraine without aura, intractable, without status migrainious. Theprescriber has not indicated why all alternatives required by the Plan (including Aimovig) 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. Therefore, an exception to the Plan's coverage criteria is not supported. Our PhysicianReviewer'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 Ajovy 225 mg/1.5 mL.