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.

Predictors of Subspecialty Appointment Scheduling and Completion for Patients Referred From a Pediatric Primary Care Clinic

Failure to complete subspecialty referrals decreases access to subspecialty care and may endanger patient safety. We conducted a retrospective analysis of new patient referrals made to the 14 most common referral departments at Boston Children's Hospital from January 1 to December 31, 2017. The sample included 2031 patient referrals. The mean wait time between referral and appointment date was 39.6 days. In all, 87% of referrals were scheduled and 84% of scheduled appointments attended, thus 73% of the original referrals were completed. In multivariate analysis, younger age, medical complexity, being a non-English speaker, and referral to a surgical subspecialty were associated with a higher likelihood of referral completion. Black and Hispanic/Latino race/ethnicity, living in a Census tract with Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) ≥ 90th percentile, and longer wait times were associated with a lower likelihood of appointment attendance. Future interventions should consider both health care system factors such as appointment wait times and community-level barriers to referral completion.

American Indian and Alaskan Native Access to Obstetrics and Gynecology Subspecialists: Findings From a National Mystery Caller Study in the United States

Background A significant disparity exists for American Indian and Alaska Native populations in accessing obstetric and gynecology (OBGYN) subspecialty care, as nearly 43% of individuals do not reside in areas where the Indian Health Service (IHS) provides care. Geographical separation from IHS facilities exacerbates healthcare disparities, particularly regarding access to specialized services. This study aims to create a map illustrating the average driving time from an IHS clinic to OBGYN subspecialists (e.g., gynecologic oncology, maternal-fetal medicine, family planning, urogynecology, pediatric and adolescent gynecology, and reproductive endocrinology and infertility [REI]) and determine the average wait time for appointments with these specialists. Study design A cross-sectional and mystery caller study was conducted using hospital-level data from the IHS and data on women from the 2010 United States Census provided by the US Census Bureau. All US OBGYN subspecialists were identified and mapped. The local distribution of clinics near IHS hospitals was determined, and the nearest OBGYN subspecialist was mapped to IHS hospitals providing women's care services. Thirty-seven OBGYN subspecialists closest to IHS hospitals were contacted to calculate the mean wait time for subspecialty care appointments. Results The median driving time to the closest gynecologic oncology, maternal-fetal medicine, family planning, urogynecology, pediatric and adolescent gynecology, and reproductive endocrinology and infertility OBGYN subspecialist was 214 minutes (interquartile range [IQR] 107-290). The longest drive to see a subspecialist for urogynecology services was over 240 minutes. From the 2010 US Census, we identified 583,574 American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) pediatric, adolescent, and women within a 60-minute drive of an IHS hospital. The mean wait time for a new patient appointment was 13.6 business days (SD ± 2). Conclusions Geographical disparities significantly impact the ability of American Indian and Alaska Native populations to access OBGYN subspecialty care. There was no difference in wait times compared to the national average, though there were significantly longer drive times.

Nurse Practitioner Delivered Virtual Care in a Pediatric Specialty Clinic

INTRODUCTION

Virtual care in pediatric specialty practice has become widely used to increase access to care, one in which nurse practitioners (NPs) can play a vital role. We sought to evaluate the outcomes of virtual care provided by pediatric cardiology and electrophysiology (EP) NPs for pediatric and congenital heart disease patients.

METHOD

Retrospective review of all virtual care visits performed by pediatric EP NPs between October 2019 and October 2021 at a single tertiary care center.

RESULTS

NPs delivered virtual care for 287 pediatric EP evaluations for 276 patients; 132 (45%) independently, with the remaining 155 collaborating with an electrophysiologist as a shared visit. The mean age was 15.2 ± 8.9 years.

DISCUSSION

NPs performed a significant subset of these visits independently and were a vital part of all visits in this study. The role of the NP in specialty pediatric virtual care should continue to be supported and advanced.

Specialized Care without the Subspecialist: A Value Opportunity for Secondary Care

An underutilized value strategy that may reduce unnecessary subspecialty involvement in pediatric healthcare targets the high-quality care of children with common chronic conditions such as obesity, asthma, or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder within primary care settings. In this commentary, we propose that "secondary care", defined as specialized visits delivered by primary care providers, a general pediatrician, or other primary care providers, can obtain the knowledge, skill and, over time, the experience to manage one or more of these common chronic conditions by creating clinical time and space to provide condition-focused care. This care model promotes familiarity, comfort, proximity to home, and leverages the provider's expertise and connections with community-based resources. Evidence is provided to prove that, with multi-disciplinary and subspecialist support, this model of care can improve the quality, decrease the costs, and improve the provider's satisfaction with care.

Medical Homes for Children With Special Health Care Needs: Primary Care or Subspecialty Service?

OBJECTIVE

To examine primary care pediatricians' (PCPs) beliefs about whether the family-centered medical home (FCMH) should be in primary or subspecialty care for children with different degrees of complexity; and to examine practice characteristics associated with these beliefs.

METHODS

Data from the American Academy of Pediatrics Periodic Survey (PS 79) conducted in 2012 were analyzed. Outcomes were agreement/strong agreement that 1) primary care should be the FCMH locus for most children with special health care needs (CSHCN) and 2) subspecialty care is the best FCMH locus for children with rare or complex conditions. In multivariate models, we tested associations between outcomes and practice barriers (eg, work culture, time, cost) and facilitators (eg, having a care coordinator) to FCMH implementation.

RESULTS

Among 572 PCPs, 65% agreed/strongly agreed primary care is the best FCMH setting for most CSHCN, and 43% agreed/strongly agreed subspecialty care is the best setting for children with complexity. Cost and time as barriers to FCMH implementation were oppositely associated with the belief that primary care was best for most CSHCN (cost: adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 2.31, 1.36-3.90; time: AOR 0.48, 0.29-0.81). Lack of skills to communicate and coordinate care was associated with the belief that specialty care was the best FCMH for children with complexity (AOR 1.99, 1.05-3.79).

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial minority endorsed specialty care as the best FCMH locus for children with medical complexity. Several barriers were associated with believing primary care to be the best FCMH for most CSHCN. Addressing medical complexity in FCMH implementation may enhance perceived value by pediatricians.

On Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act in Connecticut: the problem with subspecialty services

BACKGROUND

Medicaid is the federal program, administered by states, for health care for the poor. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has added a large number of new recipients to this program.

HYPOTHESIS

Medicaid programs in some, if not many, states do not provide patients uniform access to subspecialty care guaranteed by the federal statutes. Insofar as the ACA does not address this pre-existing "sub-specialty gap" and more patients are now covered by Medicaid under the ACA, the gap is likely to increase and may contribute to disparities of health care access and outcomes.

METHODS

A brief description of previous studies demonstrating or suggesting a subspecialty gap in Medicaid services is accompanied by perspectives of the authors, using published literature - most notably the Denver, Colorado health care system - to propose various solutions that may be deployed to address gaps in subspecialty coverage.

RESULTS

All published studies describing the Medicaid subspecialty gap are qualitative, survey designs. There are no authoritative objective data regarding the exact prevalence of gaps for each subspecialty in each state. However, surveys of caregivers suggest that gaps were prevalent in the United States prior to initiation of the ACA. Even fewer papers have addressed solutions (in light of the paucity of data describing the magnitude of the problem), and proposed solutions remain speculative and not grounded in objective data.

CONCLUSIONS

There is reason to believe that a substantial proportion of U.S. citizens - those who are guaranteed a full complement of health services through Medicaid - have difficult or no access to some subspecialty services, many of which other citizens take for granted. This problem deserves greater attention to verify its existence, quantify its magnitude, and develop solutions.

Not perfect, but better: primary care providers' experiences with electronic referrals in a safety net health system

BACKGROUND

Electronic referrals can improve access to subspecialty care in safety net settings. In January 2007, San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH) launched an electronic referral portal that incorporated subspecialist triage, iterative communication with referring providers, and existing electronic health record data to improve access to subspecialty care.

OBJECTIVE

We surveyed primary care providers (PCPs) to assess the impact of electronic referrals on workflow and clinical care.

DESIGN

We administered an 18-item, web-based questionnaire to all 368 PCPs who had the option of referring to SFGH.

MEASUREMENTS

We asked participants to rate time spent submitting a referral, guidance of workup, wait times, and change in overall clinical care compared to prior referral methods using 5-point Likert scales. We used multivariate logistic regression to identify variables associated with perceived improvement in overall clinical care.

RESULTS

Two hundred ninety-eight PCPs (81.0%) from 24 clinics participated. Over half (55.4%) worked at hospital-based clinics, 27.9% at county-funded community clinics, and 17.1% at non-county-funded community clinics. Most (71.9%) reported that electronic referrals had improved overall clinical care. Providers from non-county-funded clinics (AOR 0.40, 95% CI 0.14-0.79) and those who spent > or =6 min submitting an electronic referral (AOR 0.33, 95%CI 0.18-0.61) were significantly less likely than other participants to report that electronic referrals had improved clinical care.

CONCLUSIONS

PCPs felt electronic referrals improved health-care access and quality; those who reported a negative impact on workflow were less likely to agree. While electronic referrals hold promise as a tool to improve clinical care, their impact on workflow should be considered.