Administrative Burden and Costs of Prior Authorizations in a Dermatology Department.

Importance: Insurance companies use prior authorizations (PAs) to address inappropriate prescribing or unnecessary variations in care, most often for expensive medications. Prior authorizations negatively affect patient care and add costs and administrative burden to dermatology offices. Objective: To quantify the administrative burden and costs of dermatology PAs. Design, Setting, and Participants: The University of Utah Department of Dermatology employs 2 full-time and 8 part-time PA staff. In this cross-sectional study at a large academic department spanning 11 clinical locations, these staff itemized all PA-related encounters over a 30-day period in September 2016. Staff salary and benefits were publicly available. Data were analyzed between December 2018 and August 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of visits requiring PAs, median administrative time to finalize a PA (either approval or denial after appeal), and median cost per PA type. Results: In September 2016, 626 PAs were generated from 9512 patient encounters. Staff spent 169.7 hours directly handling PAs, costing a median of $6.72 per PA. Biologic PAs cost a median of $15.80 each and took as long as 31 business days to complete. The costliest PA equaled 106% of the associated visit's Medicare reimbursement rate. Approval rates were 99.6% for procedures, 78.9% for biologics, and 58.2% for other medications. After appeal, 5 of 23 (21.7%) previously denied PAs were subsequently approved. Conclusions and Relevance: Prior authorizations are costly to dermatology practices and their value appears limited for some requests. Fewer unnecessary PAs and appeals might increase practice efficiency and improve patient outcomes.

Melanoma prognosis in the United States: Identifying barriers for improved care.

BACKGROUND: Despite improvements in melanoma mortality, disparities in melanoma survival persist. We evaluated possible sociodemographic and health care-based predictors of differences in melanoma survival in the United States by using the melanoma mortality-to-incidence ratio (MIR). METHODS: State-based MIRs were calculated by using US cancer statistics data from 1999 to 2014. Pearson correlations and linear regressions were used to determine associations between MIR and dermatologist density, primary care provider density, number of physicians by state, number of National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers, health care spending per capita, average household income, racial/ethnic makeup of the population, percentage of uninsured individuals, and percentage with a bachelor's degree. RESULTS: The mean overall MIR was 0.15 ± 0.04; only Alaska was an outlier (0.24). No state MIRs increased significantly over time; MIR decreased for most states. Multivariable analysis revealed that states with more active physicians (P = .02) and a higher percentage non-Hispanic whites (P = .004) had higher MIRs (poorer survival). Significant Pearson correlations were seen between MIR and melanoma incidence (r = -0.72, P < .001), melanoma mortality (r = 0.38, P < .001), dermatologist density (r = 0.32, P < .001), and National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center count (r = -0.12, P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Melanoma survival is improved in higher-incidence areas and areas with higher dermatologist density. These findings highlight areas of poorer melanoma survival and the need for local studies evaluating disparities in melanoma survival.