Delays Related to Prior Authorization in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Associated With Decreased Insurance Satisfaction and Adverse Clinical Outcomes: An Inflammatory Bowel Disease Partners Survey

INTRODUCTION

Insurer-mandated barriers to timely initiation of advanced therapies used to treat inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have been shown to worsen clinical outcomes and increase healthcare utilization, yet rarely alter the medication ultimately prescribed.

METHODS

We conducted a survey within the IBD Partners longitudinal cohort to evaluate the frequency and patient-reported impacts of medication utilization barriers on insurance satisfaction and clinical outcomes. Barriers included medication denials, prior authorizations, and forced medication switches. Variables associated with insurance satisfaction, measured on a 1-7 Likert scale, were identified. The association between insurance-related barriers and downstream clinical outcomes (surgery, corticosteroid requirement, and disease activity) were evaluated.

RESULTS

Two thousand seventeen patients (age 45 [interquartile range 34-58] years, 73% female) were included. Seventy-two percent experienced an insurer-mandated barrier, most commonly prior authorizations (51%). Fifteen percent were denied an IBD medication by their insurer, 22% experienced an insurance-related gap in therapy, and 8% were forced by their insurer to switch from an effective medication. Insurance satisfaction was negatively associated with medication denials, prior authorization-related delays, gaps in therapy, and high-deductible health plan coverage. In the year following the initial survey, several insurance barriers were linked to negative downstream clinical outcomes, including prior authorizations associated with corticosteroid rescue (odds ratio [OR] 2.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.25-4.00), forced medication switches associated with continued disease activity (OR 3.28, 95% CI 1.56-6.89), and medication denials associated with IBD-related surgery (OR 8.92, 95% CI 1.97-40.39).

DISCUSSION

These data illustrate the frequency and negative impacts of insurer-mandated medication barriers on patients with IBD, including decreased insurance satisfaction and negative downstream clinical outcomes.

Challenges in IBD Research 2024: Pragmatic Clinical Research

Pragmatic clinical research is 1 of the 5 focus areas of the Challenges in IBD Research 2024, a multidisciplinary effort by scientists, clinicians, patients, and funders to identify priorities for patient-centric research. This summary provides a comprehensive overview of current gaps in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) clinical research and actionable approaches to address them. This review is focused on identifying research that is needed to achieve the best outcomes for patients in clinical practice. Research gaps include understanding the needs of understudied patient groups and addressing barriers to care so all patients receive optimal care, validating and using biomarkers to enable early diagnosis and result in better outcomes for adults and children with IBD, and determining the optimal sequencing of treatments (medical, surgical, adjunct) in children and adults. Inclusive pragmatic research is needed to address these gaps and lead to improvements in patient care and outcomes for all populations of patients with IBD.

White Paper: American Gastroenterological Association Position Statement: The Future of IBD Care in the United States-Removing Barriers and Embracing Opportunities

Despite incredible growth in systems of care and rapidly expanding therapeutic options for people with inflammatory bowel disease, there are significant barriers that prevent patients from benefiting from these advances. These barriers include restrictions in the form of prior authorization, step therapy, and prescription drug coverage. Furthermore, inadequate use of multidisciplinary care and inflammatory bowel disease specialists limits patient access to high-quality care, particularly for medically vulnerable populations. However, there are opportunities to improve access to high-quality, patient-centered care. This position statement outlines the policy and advocacy goals that the American Gastroenterological Association will prioritize for collaborative efforts with patients, providers, and payors.

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.].

Prior authorization requirements in the office-based laboratory setting are administratively inefficient and threaten timeliness of care

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to investigate the administrative and clinical impacts of prior authorization (PA) processes in the office-based laboratory (OBL) setting.

METHODS

This single-institution, retrospective analysis studied all OBL PAs pursued between January 2018 and March 2022. Case, PA, and coding information was obtained from the practice's scheduling database.

RESULTS

Over the study period, 1854 OBL cases were scheduled; 8% (n = 146) required PA. Of these, 75% (n = 110) were for lower extremity arterial interventions, 19% (n = 27) were for deep venous interventions, and 6% (n = 9) were for other interventions. Of 146 PAs, 19% (n = 27) were initially denied but 74.1% (n = 7) of these were overturned on appeal. Deep venous procedures were initially denied, at 43.8% (n = 14), more often than were arterial procedures, at 11.8% (n = 13). Of 146 requested procedures, 4% (n = 6) were delayed due to pending PA determination by a mean 14.2 ± 18.3 working days. An additional 6% (n = 8) of procedures were performed in the interest of time before final determination. Of the seven terminally denied procedures, 57% (n = 4) were performed at cost to the practice based on clinical judgment.

CONCLUSIONS

Using PA appeals mechanisms, while administratively onerous, resulted in the overturning of most initial denials.

Perianal disease: Updates and controversies in closing the gaps

Perianal complications are common and morbid in children with Crohn's disease. In this review, we describe the epidemiology, the presentation and diagnosis, evaluation and management. We focus on updates such as the increasing frequency of biologic medications and MRI for evaluation. We also highlight controversies on the timing and approaches to surgical techniques. Finally, perianal disease requires the coordination of multidisciplinary care with nursing, radiology, gastroenterology, and surgery to optimize outcomes - both medical and patient-centered.

Comparison of prior authorization across insurers: cross sectional evidence from Medicare Advantage

OBJECTIVE

To measure and compare the scope of US insurers' policies for prior authorization (PA), a process by which insurers assess the necessity of planned medical care, and to quantify differences in PA across insurers, physician specialties, and clinical service categories.

DESIGN

Cross sectional analysis.

SETTING

PA policies for five insurers serving most of the beneficiaries covered by privately administered Medicare Advantage in the US, 2021, as applied to utilization patterns observed in Medicare Part B.

PARTICIPANTS

30 540 086 beneficiaries in traditional Medicare Part B.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Proportions of government administered traditional Medicare Part B spending and utilization that would have required PA according to Medicare Advantage insurer rules.

RESULTS

The insurers required PA for 944 to 2971 of the 14 130 clinical services (median 1899; weighted mean 1429) constituting 17% to 33% of Part B spending (median 28%; weighted mean 23%) and 9% to 41% of Part B utilization (median 22%; weighted mean 18%). 40% of spending ($57bn; £45bn; €53bn) and 48% of service utilization would have required PA by at least one insurer; 12% of spending and 6% of utilization would have required PA by all insurers. 93% of Part B medication spending, or 74% of medication use, would have required PA by at least one Medicare Advantage insurer. For all Medicare Advantage insurers, hematology and oncology drugs represented the largest proportion of PA spending (range 27-34%; median 33%; weighted mean 30%). PA rates varied widely across specialties.

CONCLUSION

PA policies varied substantially across private insurers in the US. Despite limited consensus, all insurers required PA extensively, particularly for physician administered medications. These findings indicate substantial differences in coverage policies between government administered and privately administered Medicare. The results may inform ongoing efforts to focus PA more effectively on low value services and reduce administrative burdens for clinicians and patients.

Advanced Therapies for Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Navigating Payor and Financial Challenges

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In the United Sates the cost of managing Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, the two most common inflammatory bowel diseases, is a major factor that can alter the course of treatment. The increasing use of advanced therapies such as biologics and oral small molecules is a driver of these costs. Many IBD providers find navigating the payor and non-insurance cost assistance processes to be a significant challenge in care management. We aim to clarify these processes and provide an outline for success.

RECENT FINDINGS

Insurance companies use various processes to manage medication costs and while they may not ultimately be cost-effective, the processes have continued and are increasingly complex. This complexity has led to measurable delays in care and negative outcomes. With a deeper understanding of payor and non-insurance cost-assistance processes we have developed a workflow for navigating the use of advanced therapies in the treatment of IBD.

Burden with No Benefit: Prior Authorization in Congenital Cardiology

Prior authorization is a process that health insurance companies use to determine if a patient's health insurance will cover certain medical treatments, procedures, or medications. Prior authorization requests are common in adult congenital and pediatric cardiology (ACPC) due to need for advanced diagnostics, complex procedures, disease-specific medications, and the heterogeneity of the ACPC population. Prior authorizations in ACPC are rarely denied, but nonetheless, they are often accompanied by significant administrative burden on clinical care teams and delays in patient care. Prior authorizations have been implicated in worsening care inequities. The prior authorization process is insurer specific with differences between commercial and public insurers. Prior authorization rejections were previously found to be more common for women, racial minorities, those with low education, and in low-income groups. Prior authorization unduly burdens routine diagnostics, routine interventional and surgical procedures, and routine cardiac specific medication use in the ACPC population. This manuscript highlights the burdens of prior authorization and advocates for the elimination of prior authorization for ACPC patients.

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.

Insurance Approval Delay of Biologic Therapy Dose Escalation Associated with Disease Activity in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease

BACKGROUND

Dose escalation of self-injectable biologic therapy for inflammatory bowel diseases may be required to counteract loss of response and/or low drug levels. Payors often require completion of a prior authorization (PA), which is a complex approval pathway before providing coverage. If the initial PA request is denied, clinic staff must complete a time and resource-intensive process to obtain medication approval.

AIMS

This study measured time from decision to dose escalate to insurance approval and evaluated impact of approval time on disease activity.

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective analysis of adult patients with IBD prescribed an escalated dose of biologic therapy at an academic center with an integrated specialty pharmacy team from January to December 2018. Outcomes included time to insurance approval and the association between approval time and follow-up C-reactive protein (CRP) and Short Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (SIBDQ) scores. Associations were tested using linear regression analyses.

RESULTS

220 patients were included, median age 39, 53% female, and 96% white. Overall median time from decision to dose escalate to insurance approval was 7 days [interquartile range (IQR) 1, 14]. Approval time was delayed when an appeal was required [median of 29 days (IQR 17, 43)]. Patients with a longer time to insurance approval were less likely to have CRP improvement (p = 0.019). Time to insurance approval did not significantly impact follow-up SIBDQ scores.

CONCLUSION

Patients who had a longer time to insurance approval were less likely to have improvement in CRP, highlighting the negative clinical impact of a complex dose escalation process.

Efficacy and Safety of Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor Alpha in Very Early Onset Inflammatory Bowel Disease

BACKGROUND

Very early onset inflammatory bowel disease (VEOIBD) is defined as disease onset in patients younger than 6 years. Challenges in treatment of VEOIBD include lack of approved therapies and increased incidence of monogenic immunodeficiencies. We report on patterns of anti-TNF use, efficacy, and safety in a large cohort of patients with VEOIBD.

METHODS

Very early onset inflammatory bowel disease patients receiving care at a single center were prospectively enrolled in a data registry and biorepository starting in 2012. Whole exome sequencing was available to all patients. Clinical data including IBD medication use and response were extracted from the medical record. We examined antitumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) cumulative exposure and time to failure and evaluated the effect of covariates on anti-TNF failure using Cox proportional hazard regression.

RESULTS

In this cohort of 216 VEOIBD patients with median 5.8-year follow-up, 116 (53.7%) were TNF-exposed. Sixty-two TNF-exposed patients (53.4%) received their first dose at younger than 6 years. Cumulative exposure to anti-TNF was 23.6% at 1 year, 38.4% at 3 years, and 43.4% at 5 years after diagnosis. Cumulative exposure was greater in patients with Crohn's disease (P = .0004) and in those diagnosed in 2012 or later (P < .0001). Tumor necrosis factor failure occurred in 50.9% of those exposed. Features predictive of anti-TNF failure included ulcerative colitis/IBD-unclassified (hazard ratio, 1.94; P = .03), stricturing (hazard ratio, 2.20; P = .04), and younger age at diagnosis (hazard ratio, 1.25; P = .01). Adverse events occurred in 22.6% of infliximab-exposed and 14.3% of adalimumab-exposed.

CONCLUSIONS

Efficacy and safety of anti-TNFs in VEOIBD is comparable to what has previously been reported in older patients.

Delays in Therapy Associated With Current Prior Authorization Process for the Treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Despite a high approval rate, there were unnecessary delays in therapy due to prior authorizations. This study identified the impact of type of IBD, FDA-labeled indication, and dose escalations on approvals.

Real-World Persistency for Inflammatory Bowel Disease Biologics Using Patient Registry Data

Background

Although it is a truism that drugs benefit patients only when taken, surprisingly little is known about real-world drug-use persistence and discontinuation, even for expensive biologic drugs.

Methods

We used longitudinal self-reported drug-use data from the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) Partners registry of people with IBD to construct Kaplan-Meier drug-use persistency graphs for biologic drug-use spans that started between 2017 and 2022.

Results

We examined 2034 drug-use spans for 1594 survey participants. Most of the biologic drugs had a 75%+ persistency rate around the one-year mark and 60%+ persistency at the 3-year mark. The overall persistency and the differences in persistency between drugs were aligned with published literature.

Conclusions

This analysis demonstrates the feasibility of collecting IBD-specific patient-reported drug persistency data via a voluntary patient registry. Patient-reported persistency provides real-world drug persistency data and the patient's perspectives as to why they discontinued use of the drug-a combination of data and perspective that is not available from any other real-world medical record, claim, and pharmacy data source that are valuable to physician, patients, payers, healthcare policymakers, and health technology assessment organizations.

One Year Into Dupilumab: Physician and Patient Experiences in Initiating Dupilumab for Pediatric Eosinophilic Esophagitis

In 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration approved dupilumab for treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). The aims of this study were to report physician and patient perspectives on initiating dupilumab. A 2-pronged approach was used: (1) data on physician prescribing practices was gathered via retrospective chart review of EoE patients prescribed dupilumab and (2) pediatric patients on dupilumab were approached to complete a questionnaire regarding reasons for initiation. During this time, 42 patients were prescribed dupilumab. From the physician's perspective, the primary reasons for dupilumab included nonresponse to topical corticosteroids (TCS) (52%), nonadherence (28%), adverse effects (10%), or to treat multiple atopic diseases (5%). The median dupilumab initiation time, from day prescribed to first injection, was 37 days [interquartile range (IQR) 37]. Almost all required prior authorization (PA) (98%), while 17% required letter of appeal and 2% required peer-to-peer. Fifteen patients (36%) completed the questionnaire portion of the study. From the patient's perspective, the primary reasons for dupilumab initiation included nonresponse to TCS (27%), nonadherence to TCS (27%), concern about adverse effects of TCS (7%), and treatment of multiple atopic diseases (33%). In conclusion, physicians are prescribing dupilumab primarily for nonresponse to TCS and almost all required PA with a long delay to starting dupilumab.

The State of Clinical Trials in Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease

The gap between available biologic and small molecule therapy for inflammatory bowel disease for children and adults remains large. At present only 2 anti-TNF agents are licensed for pediatric use compared with multiple other agents with different mechanisms of action being used in adults. The reasons are many but largely revolve around the inadequate acceptance of adult efficacy data to children, and the reluctance of industry to commit to early pediatric drug development for fear of inadequate return on investment. We suggest common sense steps that need to be taken to improve this situation.

Barriers to optimizing inflammatory bowel disease care in the United States

Significant progress in the management and modification of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has been made; however, significant barriers to the optimization of IBD care in the United States still exist. The majority of these barriers are constructed by insurance carriers and the integration of market pressures into healthcare decision-making. In this review, we highlight the barriers to IBD care optimization within the context of the US insurance system and review current and proposed solutions.

The association between cost sharing, prior authorization, and specialty drug utilization: A systematic review

BACKGROUND: Specialty drugs are identified by high monthly costs and complexity of administration. Payers use utilization management strategies, including prior authorization and separate tiers with higher cost sharing, to control spending. These strategies can negatively impact patients' health outcomes through treatment initiation delays, medication abandonment, and nonadherence. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of patient cost sharing on specialty drug utilization and the effect of prior authorization on treatment delay and specialty drug utilization. METHODS: We conducted a literature search in the period between February 2021 and April 2022 using PubMed for articles published in English without restriction on date of publication. We included research papers with prior authorization and cost sharing for specialty drugs as exposure variables and specialty drug utilization as the outcome variable. Studies were reviewed by 2 independent reviewers and relevant information from eligible studies was extracted using a standardized form and approved by 2 reviewers. Review papers, opinion pieces, and projects without data were excluded. RESULTS: Forty-four studies were included in this review after screening and exclusions, 9 on prior authorization and 35 on cost sharing. Patients with lower cost sharing via patient support programs experienced higher adherence, fewer days to fill prescriptions, and lower discontinuation rates. Similar outcomes were noted for patients on low-income subsidy programs. Increasing cost sharing above $100 was associated with up to 75% abandonment rate for certain specialty drugs. This increased level of cost sharing was also associated with higher discontinuation rates and odds. At the same time, decreasing out-of-pocket costs increased initiation of specialty drugs. However, inconsistent results on impact of cost sharing on medication possession ratio (MPR) and proportion of days covered (PDC) were reported. Some studies reported a negative association between higher costs and MPR and PDC; however, MPR and PDC of cancer specialty drugs did not decrease with higher costs. Significant delays in prescription initiation were reported when prior authorization was needed. CONCLUSIONS: Higher levels of patient cost sharing reduce specialty drug use by increasing medication abandonment while generally decreasing initiation and persistence. Similarly, programs that reduce patient cost sharing increase initiation and persistence. In contrast, cost sharing had an inconsistent and bidirectional effect on MPR and PDC. Prior authorization caused treatment delays, but its effects on specialty drug use varied. More research is needed to examine the effect of cost sharing and prior authorization on long-term health outcomes.

Prior Authorization in Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Survey of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons Membership

BACKGROUND

This study surveyed the impact that prior authorization has on the practices of total joint arthroplasty (TJA) members of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS).

METHODS

A 24-question survey was approved by the AAHKS Advocacy Committee and distributed to all 2,802 board-certified members of AAHKS.

RESULTS

There were 353 survey responses (13%). Ninety-five percent of surgeons noted a 5-year increase in prior authorization. A majority (71%) of practices employ at least 1 staff member to exclusively work on prior authorization. Average time spent on prior authorization was 15 h/wk (range, 1 to 125) and average number of claims peer week was 18 (range, 1 to 250). Surgeries (99%) were the most common denial. These were denied because nonoperative treatment had not been tried (71%) or had not been attempted for enough time (67%). Most (57%) prior authorization processes rarely/never changed the treatment provided. Most (56%) indicated that prior authorization rarely/never followed evidence-based guidelines. A majority (93%) expressed high administrative burden as well as negative clinical outcomes (87%) due to prior authorization including delays to access care (96%) at least sometimes.

DISCUSSION

Prior authorization has increased in the past 5 years resulting in high administrative burden. Prior authorizations were most common for TJA surgeries because certain nonoperative treatments were not attempted or not attempted for enough time. Surgeons indicated that prior authorization may be detrimental to high-value care and lead to potentially harmful delays in care without ultimately changing the management of the patient.

Denials, Dilly-dallying, and Despair: Navigating the Insurance Labyrinth to Obtain Medically Necessary Medications for Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients

Increasingly, in the United States, the prescribing of high-cost drugs has become a challenge for physicians and other practitioners. Such drugs are highly regulated by third-party payers (aka insurance), as well as pharmacy benefit managers. Not infrequently, a clinician prescribing a medication will have the payment for the prescription denied by the third-party payer, with the end result being a delay in getting a medically necessary medication to a patient. This article highlights the challenges involved in the prior authorization and denial process, with a focus on pediatric inflammatory bowel disease. The article reviews the role of pharmacy benefits managers in restricting access to drugs, and the reasons why denials of medically necessary medications may occur. The article also provides information on how to appeal denials, how to write a letters of medical necessity, and how to conduct a proper peer-to-peer review. Advocacy from patients and clinicians will be important, as we want to reform the process in the future.

Barriers From Third-Party Payers to Biologic Use in Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Biologic agents are now standard of care in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The ability to use biologics in clinical practice is in part dictated by insurance company policies. There is a long delay between adult and pediatric approval of biologic agents, and these therapies are often denied by third-party payers for use in pediatric IBD patients. This study prospectively identified pediatric patients with IBD who were started on a biologic medication at our institution, and third-party payer decisions were recorded. There were no denials in patients with Medicaid, but private payers frequently interfered with use of biologic agents. Reasons for denial are generally for use of a specific off-label agent or dosing of an approved agent. These denials lead to delayed treatment, nonmedically sound changes in therapy, and increased administrative burden on providers.