Evaluating the effect of prior authorizations in patients with complex dermatologic conditions

The impact of prior authorization review on orthopaedic subspecialty care: a prospective multicenter analysis

BACKGROUND

Prior authorization review (PAR), in the United States, is a process that was initially intended to focus on hospital admissions and costly high-acuity care. Over time, payors have broadened the scope of PAR to include imaging studies, prescriptions, and routine treatment. The potential detrimental effect of PAR on health care has recently been brought into the limelight, but its impact on orthopedic subspecialty care remains unclear. This study investigated the denial rate, the duration of care delay, and the administrative burden of PAR on orthopedic subspecialty care.

METHODS

A prospective, multicenter study was performed analyzing the PAR process. Orthopedic shoulder and/or sports subspecialty practices from 6 states monitored payor-mandated PAR during the course of providing routine patient care. The insurance carrier (traditional Medicare, managed Medicare, Medicaid, commercial, worker's compensation, or government payor [ie, Tricare, Veterans Affairs]), location of service, rate of approval or denial, time to approval or denial, and administrative time required to complete process were all recorded and evaluated.

RESULTS

Of 1065 total PAR requests, we found a 1.5% (16/1065) overall denial rate for advanced imaging or surgery when recommended by an orthopedic subspecialist. Commercial and Medicaid insurance resulted in a small but statistically significantly higher rate of denial compared to traditional Medicare, managed Medicare, worker's compensation, or governmental insurance (P < .001). The average administrative time spent on a single PAR was 19.5 minutes, and patients waited an average of 2.2 days to receive initial approval. Managed Medicare, commercial insurance, worker's compensation, and Medicaid required approximately 3-4 times more administrative time to process a PAR than to traditional Medicare or other governmental insurance (P < .001). After controlling for the payor, we identified a significant difference in approval or denial based on geographic location (P < .001). An appeal resulted in a relatively low rate of subsequent denial (20%). However, approximately a third of all appeals remained in limbo for 30 days or more after the initial request.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest prospective analysis to date of the impact of PAR on orthopedic subspecialty care in the United States. Nearly all PAR requests are eventually approved when recommended by orthopedic subspecialists, despite requiring significant resource use and delaying care. Current PAR practices constitute an unnecessary process that increases administrative burden and negatively impacts access to orthopedic subspecialty care. As health care shifts to value-based care, PAR should be called into question, as it does not seem to add value but potentially negatively impacts cost and timeliness of care.

Nearly All Peer-to-Peer Reviews for CT and MRI Prior Authorization Denials for Orthopedic Specialists Are Approved

In the event of prior authorization denial, physicians may request peer-to-peer review, which may delay treatment and increase administrative burden. The purpose of this study was to quantify the approval rate of peer-to-peer review and evaluate its efficiency in the context of advanced imaging use in an orthopedic practice. Patients at a single outpatient orthopedic clinic initially receiving an insurance denial for computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging requiring peer-to-peer review from March to December 2022 were prospectively enrolled. Characteristics of the request, peer-to-peer review, and the reviewer and dates in the process were collected. If the study was approved after peer-to-peer review, the date of the imaging study and brief results were recorded. A total of 62 denials were included. One denial was approved prior to peer-to-peer review. Fifty-eight (of 61, 95.1%) reviews were approved, of which 51 (of 58, 87.9%) studies were completed by patients. Reviewers were always physicians (61 of 61, 100%), but of those whose specialty was known, none were orthopedic surgeons. Forty-four of 61 (72.1%) reviewers reported reviewing clinical notes in advance. The median number of days from visit to peer-to-peer review was 9.0 (interquartile range, 7.0-13.25). The median number of days from visit to imaging center appointment was 13.5 (interquartile range, 9.0-20.75) for approved studies. Of the 51 approved studies completed by patients, the results of 38 (74.5%) confirmed the suspected diagnosis. In an orthopedic specialty practice, almost all peer-to-peer reviews were approved, with the majority of the completed studies confirming the suspected diagnosis. Thus, patient care was delayed. Reform is crucial to improve the efficiency of the review process, especially in light of additional administrative and financial burden. [Orthopedics. 2024;47(3):141-146.].

The Impact of Insurance Restrictions in Newly Diagnosed Individuals With Multiple Sclerosis

BACKGROUND

The medical system in the United States has been riddled with insurance restrictions used by insurance companies to limit health care costs. The effects of insurance restrictions on patients receiving disease-modifying therapies for multiple sclerosis (MS) have not been specifically studied.

METHODS

A retrospective cross-sectional study of 52 individuals recently diagnosed with MS at a tertiary neurology clinic was conducted to measure the association between prior authorization (PA) duration and other variables of interest. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine likelihood of approval. Further analysis included multivariable logistic regression to assess the influence of variables of interest on the initial decision from the insurance company and the effect of the PA on disease activity.

RESULTS

Of 52 PAs, 50% were initially denied. An initial denial decreased the likelihood of approval by 98% (HR, 0.02; 95% CI, <0.01-0.09; P < .001). The odds of denial for oral medications (odds ratio [OR], 4.91; 95% CI, 1.33-21.52; P = .02) and infusions (OR, 8.35; 95% CI, 1.10-88.77; P = .05) were significantly higher than for injections. Medicaid had higher odds of denial compared with commercial insurance (OR, 4.51; 95% CI, 1.13-22.01; P = .04). An initial denial by insurance significantly increased the likelihood of disease activity (OR, 6.18; 95% CI, 1.33-44.86; P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

Insurance restrictions delay necessary treatments, increase the likelihood of disease activity, and rarely change the approved disease-modifying therapy. Reducing PAs may lead to improved outcomes for patients with MS.

Impact of a Standardized, Pharmacist-Initiated "Test-Claim" Workflow for Anticipating Barriers to Accessing Discharge Antimicrobials

Background: Inability to access and afford discharge oral antimicrobials may delay discharges or result in therapeutic failure. "Test-claims" have the potential to identify such barriers. Objective: This study evaluated discharge antimicrobial access and patient outcomes after implementation of a standardized, inpatient pharmacist-initiated antimicrobial discharge medication cost inquiry (aDMCI) process. Methods: This was an Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved, pilot retrospective cohort study that included adults admitted for ≥72 hours from November 1, 2018, to February 28, 2019, and discharged on oral antimicrobials. Patients with a cost inquiry (aDMCI group) were compared with those without (standard-of-care, SOC, group). Primary endpoint was discharge delay. Secondary endpoints included percentage of patients discharged on suboptimal antimicrobials and medication errors from aDMCI. Results: 84 patients were included: 43 in SOC and 41 in aDMCI. Seventy-five antimicrobial cost inquiries were evaluated among 41 patients. There were no discharge delays or medication errors associated with the standardized "test-claim" (aDMCI) workflow. Patients in the SOC group had a greater Charlson Comorbidity Index (4 [2-6] vs 2 [1-4], P =0.004), were more likely to be immunosuppressed (24, 56% vs 12, 29%; P =0.014), and had longer hospitalization (8 [5-15] vs 6 [5-9] days, P =0.026). Primary access barriers were prior-authorization (8, 11%) and associated with linezolid and moxifloxacin cost inquiries. Most aDMCIs results were available in <24 hours (66, 88%). Conclusions: The aDMCI process is safe and offers an actionable transition of care tool that can identify barriers to accessing discharge medications while insulating patients from surprise out-of-pocket cost.

Patterns of Unnecessary Insurer Prior Authorization Denials in a Complex Surgical Oncology Practice

INTRODUCTION

Insurance prior authorization (PA) is a determination of need, required by a health insurer for an ordered test/procedure. If the test/procedure is denied, a peer-to-peer (P2P) discussion between ordering provider and payer is used to appeal the decision. The objective of this study was to measure the number and patterns of unnecessary PA denials.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review at a quaternary cancer center from October 2021 to March 2022. Included were all patients with outpatient imaging orders for surgical planning or surveillance of gastrointestinal, endocrine, or skin cancer. Primary outcome was unnecessary initial denial (UID) defined as an order that required preauthorization, was initially denied by the insurer, and subsequently overturned by P2P.

RESULTS

Nine hundred fifty seven orders were placed and 419 required PA (44%). Of tests requiring authorization, 55/419 (13.1%) were denied. Variability in the likelihood of initial denial was seen across insurers, ranging from 0% to 57%. Following P2P, 32/55 were overturned (58.2% UID). The insurers most likely to have a UID were Aetna (100%), Anthem (77.8%), and Cigna (50.0%). UID was most common for gastrointestinal (58.9%) and endocrine (58.3%) cancers. Average P2P was 33.5 min (interquartile range 28-40).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of imaging studies initially denied were overturned after P2P. If all UIDs were eliminated, this would represent 108 less P2P discussions with an estimated time-savings of 60.3 h annually within a high-volume surgical oncology practice. Combined personnel costs to the health systems and stress on patients with cancer due to image-associated PAs and P2P appear hard to justify.

The Impact of Electronic Health Record Interventions on Patient Access to Post-Hospital Discharge Prescriptions

Purpose: Assess the impact of electronic health record interventions on patient access to post-hospital discharge prescriptions. Methods: Five interventions were implemented in the electronic health record to improve patient access to prescriptions after discharge from hospital: electronic prior authorization, alternative medication suggestions, order sets, mail order pharmacy alerts, and medication interchange instructions. This was a retrospective cohort study of patient responses from discharges during 6 months before the first intervention implementation and 6 months after the last intervention implementation documented in the electronic health record and a transition-in-care platform. Primary endpoint was the proportion of discharges with patient-reported issues that would have been prevented by the studied interventions out of number of discharges with at least one prescription, analyzed using Chi-squared test (level of significance .05). Results: Discharges with patient-reported issues that would have been prevented by the studied interventions decreased from 1.68 to 1.07 out of 1000 discharges with prescriptions (P < .001). Conclusion: Interventions in the electronic health record reduced barriers faced by patients to picking up prescriptions post-discharge from hospital, potentially leading to improved patient satisfaction and improved health outcomes. Important factors to consider for electronic health record intervention implementation are workflow development and intrusiveness of clinical decision support. Multiple targeted electronic health record interventions can improve patients' access to prescriptions after discharge from hospital.

Evaluation of prior authorizations in transplant recipients at an urban institution

BACKGROUND

Increasing prior authorization (PA) requirements for immunosuppression remain a burden for solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients and transplant staff. The objective of this study was to evaluate the number of PAs required and the approval rates at an academic, urban transplant center.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of SOT recipients at the University of Illinois Hospital and Health Sciences System (UI Health) that required PAs between 11/1/2019 and 12/1/2020. Inclusion criteria were SOT recipients greater than 18 years of age and prescribed a medication by the transplant team that required PA. Duplicate PA requests were excluded from the analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 879 PAs were included in the study. Of these PAs, 85% (747/879) were approved. Seventy-four percent of the denials were overturned by an appeal. Most PAs were in black (45.4%), kidney transplant (62%), Medicare (31.7%), and Medicaid recipients (33.2%). The median approval time was 1 day for PAs and 5 days for appeals. Tacrolimus extended release (XR) (35.4%), tacrolimus immediate release (IR) (9.7%),and mycophenolic acid (7%) required most PAs. Black recipients and immunosuppression were identified as predictors of eventual PA approval, whereas recipients with Medicaid were less likely to obtain approval.

CONCLUSIONS

At our transplant center, there was a high approval rate of PAs for immunosuppression, which calls into question the utility of PAs in this patient population, where these medications are standard of care. More black recipients and patients with Medicare and Medicaid had increased PA requirements, highlighting further disparities within the current system.

Automated versus manual prior authorization for diabetes mellitus drugs: A retrospective study from Israel

Introduction

Drug prior authorization (PA) imposes a bureaucratic and economic burden on healthcare service providers and payers. A novel automated PA system may improve these drawbacks.

Methods

An historical cohort study from a large health maintenance organization in Israel, comparing manual versus automated PA mechanisms for diabetes mellitus (DM) drugs: sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 analogs (GLP1-A). We compared patients with DM, whose first drug applications were approved using the automated system, with similar patients whose first drug applications were approved by manual PA. The primary endpoint was the time elapsed from application approval to prescription filling (accessibility time). Secondary endpoints included the prescription filling rate at 7 and 30 days.

Results

In total, 1371 automated approved prescriptions and 1240 manually approved prescriptions were included in the analysis. Median accessibility time was one day (interquartile range (IQR) 0-5) with automated PA for both GLP1-A and SGLT2i, compared with four days (IQR 1-9) and three days (IQR 1-8), respectively, with the manual PA (p < 0.001). Eighty-four percent of GLP1-A automated PA approvals were filled within seven days compared with 70% with manual PA (p < 0.001). Similar results were seen with SGLT2i (80% vs. 72%, p < 0.008). No differences were observed at 30 days post-approval. Using logistic regression, odds for GLP1-A and SGLT2i prescription filling within seven days were 2.36 and 1.53 folds higher (respectively) with automated PA (p < 0.01).

Conclusions

Automated PA system improved access time to SGLT2i/GLP1-A seven days post-approval compared to manual PA.

Burden of Prior Authorization Requirements on Urology Practice and Patients

OBJECTIVES

To determine the final outcomes of various types of prior authorizations (PAs), and to quantify the administrative and financial burden of PAs on urology practice. PAs are often required before imaging, procedures or medications can be ordered. However, they can delay timely delivery of patient care and place a significant administrative burden on practices. The impact of PAs has been poorly studied, and no studies on PAs' burden on urology practice are available.

METHODS

Imaging and medications requiring PAs from an outpatient urology clinic from November 2020 to February 2021 were reviewed (n=267). Authorization outcomes were tracked to resolution. We calculated the time spent on PAs, and the estimated overall financial burden on the practice.

RESULTS

Of the PAs required, 60.6% were for imaging and 39.4% were for medications. Initial decision for PAs took a median of 2 days [IQR: 0-6, Range: 0-36], whereas decisions after an appeal (n=51) took a median of 10 days [IQR: 5-23, range 0-125 days]. Private insurance compared to Medicare or Medicaid, has an earlier time to decision (p=<0.001). Initial approval rates were 67.5%, and final approval rates after appeals were 88.2%. Of orders originally denied, a majority (77.3%) were appealed, 13.6% required alternative orders, and 7.6% paid out of pocket. The total cost to the practice was $2206.06, with a $15.11 mean cost of each PA.

CONCLUSIONS

PAs for imaging studies and medications pose a significant administrative and financial burden to urology patients and practice.

A comprehensive framework for navigating patient care in systemic sclerosis: A global response to the need for improving the practice of diagnostic and preventive strategies in SSc

Systemic sclerosis (SSc), the most lethal of rheumatologic conditions, is the cause of death in >50% of SSc cases, led by pulmonary fibrosis followed by pulmonary hypertension and then scleroderma renal crisis (SRC). Multiple other preventable and treatable SSc-related vascular, cardiac, gastrointestinal, nutritional and musculoskeletal complications can lead to disability and death. Vascular injury with subsequent inflammation transforming to irreversible fibrosis and permanent damage characterizes SSc. Organ involvement is often present early in the disease course of SSc, but requires careful history-taking and vigilance in screening to detect. Inflammation is potentially reversible provided that treatment intensity quells inflammation and other immune mechanisms. In any SSc phenotype, opportunities for early treatment are prone to be under-utilized, especially in slowly progressive phenotypes that, in contrast to severe progressive ILD, indolently accrue irreversible organ damage resulting in later-stage life-limiting complications such as pulmonary hypertension, cardiac involvement, and malnutrition. A single SSc patient visit often requires much more physician and staff time, organization, vigilance, and direct management for multiple organ systems compared to other rheumatic or pulmonary diseases. Efficiency and efficacy of comprehensive SSc care enlists trending of symptoms and bio-data. Financial sustainability of SSc care benefits from understanding insurance reimbursement and health system allocation policies for complex patients. Sharing care between recognised SSc centers and local cardiology/pulmonary/rheumatology/gastroenterology colleagues may prevent complications and poor outcomes, while providing support to local specialists. As scleroderma specialists, we offer a practical framework with tools to facilitate an optimal, comprehensive and sustainable approach to SSc care. Improved health outcomes in SSc relies upon recogntion, management and, to the extent possible, prevention of SSc and treatment-related complications.