RESUMEN
Facing increasing economization in the health care sector, clinicians have to adapt not only to the ever-growing economic challenges, but also to a patient-oriented health care. Treatment costs are the most important variable for optimizing success when facing scarce human resources, increasing material- and infrastructure costs in general, as well as low revenue flexibility due to flat rates per case in Germany, the so-called Diagnosis-Related Groups (DRG). University hospitals treat many patients with particularly serious illnesses. Therefore, their share of complex and expensive treatments, such as liver cirrhosis, is significantly higher. The resulting costs are not adequately reflected in the DRG flat rate per case, which is based on an average calculation across all hospitals, which increases this economic pressure. Thus, the aim of this manuscript is to review cost and revenue structures of the management of varices in patients with cirrhosis at a university center with a focus on hepatology. For this monocentric study, the data of 851 patients, treated at the Gastroenterology Department of a University Hospital between 2016 and 2020, were evaluated retrospectively and anonymously. Medical services (e.g., endoscopy, radiology, laboratory diagnostics) were analyzed within the framework of activity-based-costing. As part of the cost unit accounting, the individual steps of the treatment pathways of the 851 patients were monetarily evaluated with corresponding applicable service catalogs and compared with the revenue shares of the cost center and cost element matrix of the German (G-) DRG system. This study examines whether university-based high-performance medicine is efficient and cost-covering within the framework of the G-DRG system. We demonstrate a dramatic underfunding of the management of varicose veins in cirrhosis in our university center. It is therefore generally questionable whether and to what extent an adequate care for this patient collective is reflected in the G-DRG system.
Asunto(s)
Várices Esofágicas y Gástricas , Hospitales Universitarios , Cirrosis Hepática , Humanos , Alemania , Cirrosis Hepática/economía , Cirrosis Hepática/complicaciones , Hospitales Universitarios/economía , Hospitales Universitarios/organización & administración , Várices Esofágicas y Gástricas/economía , Várices Esofágicas y Gástricas/etiología , Várices Esofágicas y Gástricas/terapia , Masculino , Femenino , Programas Nacionales de Salud/economía , Grupos Diagnósticos Relacionados/economía , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Retrospectivos , Anciano , Gastroenterología/economía , Gastroenterología/organización & administración , AdultoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: With the introduction of §115f SGB V, the prerequisites for "sector-equal remuneration" ('Hybrid DRG') have been created. In an impact analysis, we assigned inpatient gastroenterological endoscopic (GAEN) cases in a matrix of future hybrid DRG versus outpatient surgery (AOP) or inpatient treatment. METHODS: In selected DRGs (G47B, G67A, G67B, G67C, G71Z, H41D, H41E) an allocation matrix of GAEN cases was created on medical grounds. For this purpose, service groups from the DGVS service catalog ('Leistungskatalog') were assigned to the groups: 'Hybrid-DRG', 'AOP' and 'Inpatient' by a group of experts based on the DGVS position paper. Cost data from the DGVS-DRG project for the 2022 data year from 36 InEK calculation hospitals with a total of 232,476 GAEN cases were evaluated. RESULTS: 26 service groups from the DGVS service catalog were assigned to a "Hybrid-DRG", 24 to the "inpatient" group, and 12 to the "AOP" group. 7 performance groups were splitted "depending on the OPS code" and classified at this level. Cases with additional fees were excluded from a hybrid DRG because these cannot be agreed there.The cost analysis shows that services that are already in the AOP have a similar cost level to services that have been classified as 'Hybrid-DRG'. With the cost calculation, a cost level could be presented for the hybrid DRGs formed. CONCLUSION: Based on clearly defined structural, procedural and personnel requirements, services from suitable DRGs can be transferred to a hybrid DRG. Assigning services without the involvement of clinical experts seems extremely difficult. Case assignment based on arbitrary contextual factors increases complexity without demonstrably increasing the quality of the assignment and needs to be further developed. A cost analysis can be derived from the known inpatient costs and must serve as the basis for the 2025 Hybrid DRG catalog.
Asunto(s)
Grupos Diagnósticos Relacionados , Grupos Diagnósticos Relacionados/economía , Alemania , Humanos , Endoscopía Gastrointestinal/economía , Costos de la Atención en Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Costos y Análisis de Costo , Gastroenterología/economía , Programas Nacionales de Salud/economíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines assist healthcare professionals in providing evidence-based care. However, pharmaceutical companies' financial interests often influence guideline content. This study aimed to elucidate the magnitude of financial ties among Japanese gastroenterology guideline authors and the pharmaceutical industry. METHODS: Using pharmaceutical company disclosed payment data, we evaluated financial conflicts of interest (COI) among Japanese Society of Gastroenterology guideline authors between 2016 and 2021. Additionally, we assessed the evidence quality supporting guideline recommendations and associations with financial COI. Finally, we evaluated author COI management during guideline development against global standards. RESULTS: Overall, 88.2% (231/262) of guideline authors received a median of $12 968 (interquartile range [IQR]: $1839-$70 374) in payments between 2016 and 2019 for lectures, writings, and consulting. Chairpersons received significantly higher payments (median: $86 444 [IQR: $15 455-$165 679]). Notably, 41 (15.6%) authors had undeclared payments exceeding declaration requirements. Low or very low-quality evidence supported 41.0% of recommendations. There was a negative association between the median 4-year payment per author and the proportion of recommendations based on low-quality evidence (odds ratio: 0.966 [95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.945-0.987], P = 0.002) and positive association with moderate-quality evidence (odds ratio: 1.018 [95% CI: 1.011-1.025], P < 0.001). Still, the Japanese Society of Gastroenterology guideline development process remains less transparent, with insufficient COI policies relative to global standards. CONCLUSION: There were extensive financial COI between pharmaceutical companies and guideline authors, and more than 40% of recommendations were based on low-quality evidence. More rigorous and transparent COI policies for guideline development adhering to global standards are warranted.
Asunto(s)
Autoria , Conflicto de Intereses , Industria Farmacéutica , Gastroenterología , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Humanos , Conflicto de Intereses/economía , Apoyo Financiero , Gastroenterología/economía , Gastroenterología/ética , Gastroenterología/normas , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto/normas , Industria Farmacéutica/economía , Industria Farmacéutica/éticaRESUMEN
AIM: To report revolutionary reorganization of academic gastroenterology division from COVID-19 pandemic surge at metropolitan Detroit epicenter from 0 infected patients on March 9, 2020, to > 300 infected patients in hospital census in April 2020 and > 200 infected patients in April 2021. SETTING: GI Division, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, has 36 GI clinical faculty; performs > 23,000 endoscopies annually; fully accredited GI fellowship since 1973; employs > 400 house staff annually since 1995; tertiary academic hospital; predominantly voluntary attendings; and primary teaching hospital, Oakland-University-Medical-School. METHODS: This was a prospective study. Expert opinion. Personal experience includes Hospital GI chief > 14 years until 2020; GI fellowship program director, several hospitals > 20 years; author of > 300 publications in peer-reviewed GI journals; committee-member, Food-and-Drug-Administration-GI-Advisory Committee > 5 years; and key hospital/medical school committee memberships. Computerized PubMed literature review was performed on hospital changes and pandemic. Study was exempted/approved by Hospital IRB, April 14, 2020. RESULTS: Division reorganized patient care to add clinical capacity and minimize risks to staff of contracting COVID-19 infection. Affiliated medical school changes included: changing "live" to virtual lectures; canceling medical student GI electives; exempting medical students from treating COVID-19-infected patients; and graduating medical students on time despite partly missing clinical electives. Division was reorganized by changing "live" GI lectures to virtual lectures; four GI fellows temporarily reassigned as medical attendings supervising COVID-19-infected patients; temporarily mandated intubation of COVID-19-infected patients for esophagogastroduodenoscopy; postponing elective GI endoscopies; and reducing average number of endoscopies from 100 to 4 per weekday during pandemic peak! GI clinic visits reduced by half (postponing non-urgent visits), and physical visits replaced by virtual visits. Economic pandemic impact included temporary, hospital deficit subsequently relieved by federal grants; hospital employee terminations/furloughs; and severe temporary decline in GI practitioner's income during surge. Hospital temporarily enhanced security and gradually ameliorated facemask shortage. GI program director contacted GI fellows twice weekly to ameliorate pandemic-induced stress. Divisional parties held virtually. GI fellowship applicants interviewed virtually. Graduate medical education changes included weekly committee meetings to monitor pandemic-induced changes; program managers working from home; canceling ACGME annual fellowship survey, changing ACGME physical to virtual site visits; and changing national conventions from physical to virtual. CONCLUSION: Reports profound and pervasive GI divisional changes to maximize clinical resources devoted to COVID-19-infected patients and minimize risks of transmitting infection.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19/economía , COVID-19/epidemiología , Economía Hospitalaria/organización & administración , Gastroenterología/educación , Administración Hospitalaria/métodos , SARS-CoV-2 , Ciudades/economía , Ciudades/epidemiología , Educación de Postgrado en Medicina/organización & administración , Gastroenterología/economía , Administración Hospitalaria/economía , Humanos , Internado y Residencia , Michigan/epidemiología , Afiliación Organizacional/economía , Afiliación Organizacional/organización & administración , Estudios Prospectivos , Facultades de Medicina/organización & administraciónRESUMEN
Introduction: Medical professional liability (MPL) is a notable concern for many clinicians, especially in procedure-intensive specialties such as gastroenterology (GI). Comprehensive understanding of the basis for MPL claims can improve gastroenterologists' practice, lower MPL risk, and improve the overall patient care experience. This is particularly relevant in the setting of the increasing average compensation per paid GI-related MPL claim, and evolving healthcare delivery patterns and regulations.Areas Covered: MPL claims are generally grounded in the concept of negligence, a broad term that may apply to situations involving medical errors, ameliorable adverse events, inadequate informed consent and/or refusal, and numerous others. Though often not directly discussed in GI training or thereafter, there are various mechanisms and behaviors that can alter (decrease or increase) MPL risk. Additional dimensions of MPL include telemedicine, social media, and vicarious liability. We discuss these topics as well as takeaways to mitigate risk, thus reducing unnecessary clinician anxiety, promoting professional development, and optimizing healthcare outcomes.Expert Opinion: MPL risk is modifiable. Strong provider-patient relationships, through effective communication, patient reassurance, and enhanced informed consent, decrease risk, as does thorough documentation. Conversely, provider 'defensive' mechanisms intended to decrease MPL risk, including assurance and avoidance behaviors, may paradoxically increase it.
Asunto(s)
Gastroenterología , Responsabilidad Legal , Comunicación , Documentación , Gastroenterología/economía , Gastroenterología/legislación & jurisprudencia , Gastroenterología/normas , Humanos , Consentimiento Informado , Responsabilidad Legal/economía , Mala Praxis/economía , Mala Praxis/legislación & jurisprudencia , Errores Médicos/legislación & jurisprudencia , Relaciones Médico-Paciente , Factores de RiesgoRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Celiac disease (CeD) is a lifelong immune-mediated enteropathy in which dietary gluten triggers an inflammatory reaction in the small intestine. This retrospective cohort study examines healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs between patients with CeD and matched controls. METHODS: Patients with CeD (cases) with an endoscopic biopsy and ≥2 medical encounters with a CeD diagnosis between January 1, 2010, and October 1, 2015, were identified in the MarketScan databases. The date of the first claim with a CeD diagnosis on or after the endoscopic biopsy was the index date. Cases were matched 1:1 to patients without CeD (controls) on demographic characteristics and Deyo-Charlson Comorbidity Index score. Clinical characteristics, all-cause, and CeD-related HRU and costs (adjusted to 2017 US dollars) were compared between cases and controls during the 12 months before (baseline) and 24 months after (follow-up) the index date. RESULTS: A total of 11,008 cases (mean age 40.6 years, 71.3% women) were matched to 11,008 controls. During the follow-up, a higher proportion of cases had all-cause and CeD-related HRU including inpatient admissions, emergency department visits, gastroenterologist visits, dietician visits, endoscopic biopsies, and gastroenterology imaging (all P ≤ 0.002). Incremental all-cause and CeD-related costs were in the first ($7,921 and $2,894) and second ($3,777 and $935) year of follow-up, driven by outpatient services costs. DISCUSSION: In this US national claims database analysis, there was evidence of an increase in both all-cause and CeD-related HRU and related costs in patients with CeD compared with matched patients without CeD, suggesting a significant economic burden associated with CeD.
Asunto(s)
Atención Ambulatoria/estadística & datos numéricos , Enfermedad Celíaca/economía , Costos de la Atención en Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Recursos en Salud/economía , Hospitalización/estadística & datos numéricos , Adulto , Atención Ambulatoria/economía , Biopsia/economía , Biopsia/estadística & datos numéricos , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Enfermedad Celíaca/diagnóstico , Enfermedad Celíaca/dietoterapia , Dietética/economía , Dietética/estadística & datos numéricos , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital/economía , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital/estadística & datos numéricos , Endoscopía Gastrointestinal/economía , Endoscopía Gastrointestinal/estadística & datos numéricos , Femenino , Gastroenterología/economía , Gastroenterología/estadística & datos numéricos , Recursos en Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Hospitalización/economía , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estados Unidos , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a chronic functional gastrointestinal disorder. International research suggests dietary intervention as a first-line approach, although dietetic services are struggling to cope with demand. Digital technology may offer a solution to deliver appropriate patient education. The present study aimed to assess the feasibility, acceptability and cost efficiency of using webinars to deliver first-line IBS advice to patients as part of a dietetic-led gastroenterology service in primary care. METHODS: Patients were directed to an IBS First Line Advice webinar on a specialist NHS website. Data were collected from patients pre- and post-webinar use using an online survey. RESULTS: In total, 1171 attendees completed the pre-webinar survey and 443 completed the post-webinar survey. Attendees ranged from under 17 years to over 75 years. Of the attendees, 95% found the webinar easy to access and 91% were satisfied with the content of the webinar. Those with excellent or good knowledge rose from 25% pre-webinar to 67% post-webinar, and confidence in managing their condition improved for 74% of attendees. Using the webinars led to a 44% reduction in referrals for one-to-one appointments with a specialist dietitian in the first year of use. The value of the clinical time saved is estimated at £3593 per annum. The one-off cost of creating the webinar was £3597. CONCLUSIONS: The use of webinars is a feasible, acceptable and cost-efficient way of delivering first-line patient education to people suffering with Irritable Bowel Syndrome as part of a dietetic-led gastroenterology service in primary care.
Asunto(s)
Dietética/métodos , Gastroenterología/métodos , Intervención basada en la Internet , Síndrome del Colon Irritable/dietoterapia , Educación del Paciente como Asunto/métodos , Atención Primaria de Salud/métodos , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Dietética/economía , Estudios de Factibilidad , Femenino , Gastroenterología/economía , Humanos , Intervención basada en la Internet/economía , Síndrome del Colon Irritable/economía , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Aceptación de la Atención de Salud , Educación del Paciente como Asunto/economía , Atención Primaria de Salud/economía , Derivación y Consulta/economía , Derivación y Consulta/estadística & datos numéricos , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Adulto JovenAsunto(s)
Infecciones por Coronavirus/epidemiología , Gastroenterología/educación , Gastroenterología/estadística & datos numéricos , Pandemias/estadística & datos numéricos , Neumonía Viral/epidemiología , Telemedicina/estadística & datos numéricos , Actitud del Personal de Salud , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Educación de Postgrado en Medicina/estadística & datos numéricos , Becas , Gastroenterología/economía , Humanos , Reembolso de Seguro de Salud , Visita a Consultorio Médico/estadística & datos numéricos , SARS-CoV-2 , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Telemedicina/economía , Teléfono/estadística & datos numéricos , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Comunicación por Videoconferencia/estadística & datos numéricosAsunto(s)
Competencia Clínica/normas , Becas/normas , Gastroenterología/normas , Atención al Paciente/normas , Calidad de la Atención de Salud/normas , Competencia Clínica/economía , Educación de Postgrado en Medicina/normas , Gastroenterología/economía , Gastroenterología/educación , Humanos , Atención al Paciente/economía , Calidad de la Atención de Salud/economíaAsunto(s)
Investigación Biomédica/organización & administración , Gastroenterología/educación , Apoyo a la Formación Profesional/organización & administración , Investigación Biomédica/economía , Comunicación , Gastroenterología/economía , Gastroenterología/organización & administración , Humanos , Prácticas Interdisciplinarias , Tutoría , Medios de Comunicación Sociales , Reino UnidoRESUMEN
Globally, 69.6 million individuals were infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in 2016. Of the six major HCV genotypes (GT), the most predominant one is GT1, worldwide. The prevalence of HCV in Central Asia, which includes most of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), has been estimated to be 5.8% of the total global burden. The predominant genotype in the CIS and Ukraine regions has been reported to be GT1, followed by GT3. Inadequate HCV epidemiological data, multiple socio-economic barriers, and the lack of region-specific guidelines have impeded the optimal management of HCV infection in this region. In this regard, a panel of regional experts in the field of hepatology convened to discuss and provide recommendations on the diagnosis, treatment, and pre-, on-, and posttreatment assessment of chronic HCV infection and to ensure the optimal use of cost-effective antiviral regimens in the region. A comprehensive evaluation of the literature along with expert recommendations for the management of GT1-GT6 HCV infection with the antiviral agents available in the region has been provided in this review. This consensus document will help guide clinical decision-making during the management of HCV infection, further optimizing treatment outcomes in these regions.
Asunto(s)
Antivirales/uso terapéutico , Consenso , Recursos en Salud/economía , Hepacivirus/patogenicidad , Hepatitis C Crónica/tratamiento farmacológico , Antivirales/economía , Toma de Decisiones Clínicas , Comunidad de Estados Independientes/epidemiología , Quimioterapia Combinada/economía , Quimioterapia Combinada/métodos , Gastroenterología/economía , Gastroenterología/métodos , Genotipo , Hepacivirus/genética , Hepatitis C Crónica/economía , Hepatitis C Crónica/epidemiología , Humanos , Factores Socioeconómicos , Respuesta Virológica Sostenida , Ucrania/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
Importance: Performing elective upper and lower endoscopic procedures on the same day is a patient-centered and less costly approach than a 2-stage approach performed on different days, when clinically appropriate. Whether this practice pattern varies based on practice setting has not been studied. Objectives: To estimate the rate of different-day upper and lower endoscopic procedures in 3 types of outpatient settings and investigate the factors associated with the performance of these procedures on different days. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective analysis was conducted of Medicare claims between January 1, 2011, and June 30, 2018, for Medicare beneficiaries who underwent a pair of upper and lower endoscopic procedures performed within 90 days of each other at hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs), freestanding ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), and physician offices. Main Outcomes and Measures: Undergoing an upper and a lower endoscopic procedure on different days, adjusted for patient characteristics (age, sex, race/ethnicity, residence location and region, comorbidity, and procedure indication) and physician characteristics (sex, years in practice, procedure volume, and primary specialty). Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% CIs were calculated. Results: A total of 4â¯028â¯587 procedure pairs were identified, of which 52.5% were performed in HOPDs, 43.3% in ASCs, and 4.2% in physician offices. The rate of different-day procedures was 13.6% in HOPDs, 22.2% in ASCs, and 47.7% in physician offices. For the 7564 physicians who practiced at both HOPDs and ASCs, their different-day procedure rate changed from 14.1% at HOPDs to 19.4% at ASCs. For the 993 physicians who practiced at both HOPDs and physician offices, their different-day procedure rate changed from 15.8% at HOPDs to 37.4% at physician offices. Patients were more likely to undergo different-day procedures at physician offices and ASCs compared with HOPDs, even after adjusting for patient and physician characteristics (physician office vs HOPD: aOR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.85-2.20; ASC vs HOPD: aOR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.23-1.32). Older age (85-94 years vs 65-74 years: aOR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.08-1.11; 95 years or older vs 65-74 years: aOR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03-1.26), black and Hispanic race/ethnicity (black: aOR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.12-1.17; Hispanic: aOR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.10-1.14), and residing in the Northeast region (adjusted OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.28-1.36) were risk factors for undergoing different-day procedures. Micropolitan location (aOR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.92-0.96) and rural location (aOR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.89-0.93), more comorbidities (≥5: aOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.74-0.76), physician's fewer years in practice (aOR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.81-0.87), physician's higher procedure volume (aOR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.62-0.68), and physician's specialty of general surgery (aOR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.91) were protective factors. Conclusions and Relevance: Physician offices and ASCs had much higher different-day procedure rates compared with HOPDs. This disparity may represent an opportunity for quality improvement and financial savings for common endoscopic procedures.
Asunto(s)
Endoscopía Gastrointestinal/economía , Gastroenterología/normas , Servicio Ambulatorio en Hospital/economía , Consultorios Médicos/economía , Centros Quirúrgicos/economía , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Endoscopía Gastrointestinal/estadística & datos numéricos , Femenino , Gastroenterología/economía , Gastroenterología/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Masculino , Servicio Ambulatorio en Hospital/estadística & datos numéricos , Consultorios Médicos/estadística & datos numéricos , Centros Quirúrgicos/estadística & datos numéricosAsunto(s)
Gastroenterología/economía , Sector de Atención de Salud/economía , Administración de la Práctica Médica/economía , Depreciación , Gastroenterología/organización & administración , Sector de Atención de Salud/organización & administración , Inversiones en Salud/economía , Inversiones en Salud/organización & administración , Administración de la Práctica Médica/organización & administración , Impuestos/economía , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION AND AIM: The prevalence and incidence of chronic liver disease is increasing resulting, in substantial direct and indirect medical costs. Overuse of investigations, treatments and procedures contribute to rising health care costs and can expose patients to unnecessary harm and delay in receiving care. The Choosing Wisely Canada (CWC) campaign has encouraged professional societies to develop statements that are directly actionable by their members in an effort to promote higher-value health care that will lead to downstream effect on how other practitioners make decisions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The Canadian Association for the Study of the Liver (CASL) established its Choosing Wisely top five list of recommendations using the framework put forward by CWC. CASL convened a task force that developed a list of draft recommendations and shared this with CASL membership electronically with eventual ranking of the top five recommendations by consensus at Canadian Digestives Disease Week (CDDW) 2017. Following revisions, the CASL Executive Committee endorsed the final list, which was disseminated online by CWC (July 2017). RESULTS: The top five recommendations physicians and patients should question include: 1) Don't order serum ammonia to diagnose or manage hepatic encephalopathy (HE). 2) Don't routinely transfuse fresh frozen plasma, vitamin K, or platelets to reverse abnormal tests of coagulation in patients with cirrhosis prior to abdominal paracentesis, endoscopic variceal band ligation, or any other minor invasive procedures. 3) Don't order HFE genotyping based on serum ferritin values alone to diagnose hereditary hemochromatosis. 4) Don't perform computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) routinely to monitor benign focal liver lesions. 5) Don't repeat hepatitis C viral load testing in an individual who has established chronic infection, outside of anti-viral treatment. CONCLUSION: The Choosing Wisely recommendations will foster patient-physician discussions, reduce unnecessary treatment and testing, avert adverse effects from testing and treatment along with reducing medical expenditure in hepatology.
Asunto(s)
Consenso , Toma de Decisiones , Gastroenterología/economía , Costos de la Atención en Salud , Recursos en Salud/economía , Hepatopatías/terapia , Sociedades Médicas/normas , Canadá , Enfermedad Crónica , Humanos , Hepatopatías/economíaAsunto(s)
Publicidad , Gastroenterólogos/organización & administración , Gastroenterología/organización & administración , Comercialización de los Servicios de Salud/organización & administración , Administración de la Práctica Médica/organización & administración , Escritura , Publicidad/economía , Comercio/organización & administración , Conducta Cooperativa , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Gastroenterólogos/economía , Gastroenterología/economía , Costos de la Atención en Salud , Humanos , Comunicación Interdisciplinaria , Comercialización de los Servicios de Salud/economía , Técnicas de Planificación , Formulación de Políticas , Administración de la Práctica Médica/economía , Desarrollo de Programa , Participación de los InteresadosRESUMEN
In an effort to manage health care costs and avoid improper medication use, prior authorizations (PAs) have become a standard stipulation required by payers in the determination of medication coverage. For gastroenterologists managing patients, especially those with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), the PA process is time-consuming and further complicated by 2 additional factors: step therapy requirements and failure of payers to recognize updated IBD treatment pathways. These factors often lead to PA denials and cause treatment delays, which in turn can lead to disease progression, ongoing patient suffering, and ultimately an increase in both direct and indirect total costs. In this manuscript, the PA process, PA models, tips and available resources to navigate the PA process, and future advocacy efforts are discussed with the intent to help gastroenterology practices optimize PA outcomes and improve the care provided to patients with IBD and other gastrointestinal disorders.