Evaluating Access to Prescription Medications in the Atopic Dermatitis Patient Population in the USA.

INTRODUCTION: Despite advances in atopic dermatitis (AD) treatments, many patients face challenges obtaining medications. This study aimed to determine the frequency and causes of insurance coverage delays and denials for AD prescriptions and characterize the associated wait times and extent to which patients understand what to do when faced with a coverage issue. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, observational study in which adult U.S. residents (aged 18+ years) with AD or caregivers of pediatric U.S. patients with AD (aged 0-17 years) completed an online survey (3 June-16 July 2021). RESULTS: Respondents (N = 978) were primarily adults with AD (81.8%), female (67.7%), and white (70.2%). There were 645 insurance delays or denials for AD prescriptions, with 48.1% (470/978) of respondents experiencing at least one delay/denial in the past year. Most delays/denials were for topical steroids (39.2%, 253/645), the most highly used prescription treatment class (83.9%, 821/978). However, the highest rate of delay/denials was for biologics, of which 43.6% (109/250) of all prescriptions faced a delay or denial. Denials were caused primarily by step therapy (27.6%) and delays by prior authorization (55.1%). Only 56.0% of respondents said they would know what to do if they faced an issue with AD prescription coverage. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with AD frequently experience insurance-related barriers to obtaining recommended therapies, and many do not know how to respond when these barriers arise. Strategies to improve timely therapeutic access are needed.

The Impact of Prior Authorization on Clinical Practice and Patient Care Outcomes: A Work Group Report of the AAAAI Prior Authorization Task Force.

The Prior Authorization Task Force of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI), a presidential initiative of David Khan, MD, FAAAI, was established to develop an AAAAI position statement outlining ways to improve health care for our patients, to support legislation that advocates for prior authorization (PA) reform and identify the impact PA has on its membership using a questionnaire survey. This article describes the results of this survey. An electronic anonymous survey questionnaire was developed to assess the impact and burden of PA on AAAAI members and their staff and patients. Surveys were sent to randomly selected members and fellows of the AAAAI in the United States. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the results by the Information Services team of the AAAAI and the authors of this work group report. The questionnaire responses from allergy immunology specialists demographically reflected the AAAAI membership and indicate that PAs can significantly affect patient care delivery and increase administrative burden to clinical practices, leading to serious adverse events in some circumstances. Differential responses regarding PAs for various medication classes likely reflect the physician's patient population, which can shift prescribing patterns. Prior authorization is a serious health care problem that is wasting financial resources and needlessly placing patients in danger when they are unable to access medications or medical services required for clinical management. The results of this questionnaire study support the recommendations made in the recent AAAAI position statement on PA.

Prior Authorization Leads to Administrative Burden and Delays in Treatment in Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty Patients.

BACKGROUND: The prior authorization (PA) process is often criticized by physicians due to increased administrative burden and unnecessary delays in treatment. The effects of PA policies on total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have not been well described. The purpose of this study was to analyze the use of PA in a high-volume orthopaedic practice across 4 states. METHODS: We prospectively collected data on 28,725 primary THAs and TKAs performed at our institution between 2020 and 2023. Data collected included patient demographics, payer approval or denial, time to approval or denial, the number of initial denials, the number of peer-to-peer (P2P) or addenda, and the reasons for denial. RESULTS: Seven thousand five hundred twenty eight (56.4%) patients undergoing THA and 8,283 (54%) patients undergoing TKA required PA, with a mean time to approval of 26.3 ± 34.6 and 33.7 ± 41.5 days, respectively. Addenda were requested in 608 of 7,528 (4.6%) THA patients and 737 of 8,283 (8.9%) TKA patients. From a total of 312 (4.1%) THA patients who had an initial denial, a P2P was requested for 50 (0.7%) patients, and only 27 (0.4%) were upheld after the PA process. From a total of 509 (6.1%) TKA patients who had an initial denial, a P2P was requested for 55 (0.7%) patients, and only 26 (0.3%) were upheld after the PA process. The mean time to denial in the THA group was 64.7 ± 83.5, and the most common reasons for denial were poor clinical documentation (25.9%) and lack of coverage (25.9%). The mean time to denial in the TKA group was 63.4 ± 103.9 days, and the most common reason for denial was not specified by the payer (46.1%). CONCLUSIONS: The use of PA to approve elective THA and TKA led to increased surgical waiting times and a high administrative burden for surgeons and healthcare staff.

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.

Multi-Institutional Analysis of Insurance Denial Patterns Within Rhinology.

BACKGROUND: Obtaining insurance approval is a necessary component of healthcare in the United States and denials of these claims have been estimated to result in a loss of 3% to 5% of revenue. OBJECTIVE: Examine the trends in insurance denials for rhinological procedures. METHODS: A retrospective review of deidentified financial data of patients who were treated by participating physicians across 3 institutions from January 1, 2021, to June 30, 2023. The data was queried for rhinological and non-rhinological procedures via CPT codes. Cumulative insurance denials were calculated and stratified by procedure and insurance type. Write-offs were dollar amounts associated with final denials. RESULTS: A sample of 102,984 procedures and visits revealed a final denial rate between 2.2% and 2.9% across institutions (p = .72). The top three rhinological procedures for final write-offs were: nasal endoscopy (16.24%, $111,836.87), nasal debridement or polypectomy (6.48%, $79,457.51), and destruction of intranasal lesion (2.11%, $56,932.20). The write-off percentage for each procedure was highest among commercial insurance payers as opposed to Medicare or Medicaid. CONCLUSION: Final denial rates of rhinology procedures ranged between 2% and 3%. Common procedures such as nasal endoscopy and nasal debridement are among the highest written-off procedures. Insurance denials can lead to notable revenue loss. Rhinology practices must continue to remain knowledgeable of the changes and effects of insurance reimbursement on their practice.

Prior authorization for diabetes medications: Clinical outcomes and health disparities.

BACKGROUND: Prior authorization (PA) is a utilization management strategy used by health plans to ensure affordable, cost-effective care; however, PA may lead to therapy delay/abandonment and exacerbate health disparities. The purpose of this observational study was to assess the clinical outcomes and any health disparities associated with PA for diabetes mellitus (DM) medications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a cohort study of US adult patients from health plans with integrated and non-integrated system providers who were prescribed a DM medication that required a PA. Patients were categorized into three groups: received the requested DM medication (PA Med) or a new, alternative DM medication (DM Med), or did not receive the requested or new DM medication (No Med). The primary outcome was change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). Adjusted and unadjusted analyses were performed. Patient characteristics associated with the No Med group were identified, also, with multivariable logistic regression modeling. RESULTS: 6305 patients were included: 2434, 1323, and 2548 in the PA Med, DM Med, and No Med groups, respectively. Patients in the PA Med (-0.9 %) and DM Med (-1.0 %) groups had statistically significantly greater reductions in HbA1c compared to the No Med group (-0.4 %) in both unadjusted and adjusted analyses (all p < 0.05). Patients who were Hispanic/Latino, had a non-integrated system prescriber, and had a higher burden of chronic disease were statistically significantly associated with the No Med group. CONCLUSIONS: Receiving a new DM medication following PA was associated with better clinical outcomes but health disparities were present in the PA process.

Prior authorization for FDA-approved PARP inhibitors in ovarian cancer.

Objectives: PARP inhibitors (PARP-I) improve survival in ovarian cancer, especially in patients with germline or somatic BRCA mutations or other homologous recombination deficiency (HRD). With high efficacy and costs, insurers may enact barriers or facilitators to PARP-I. Our objective was to examine the prevalence of prior authorization for PARP-I in ovarian cancer. Methods: We performed a retrospective cross-sectional study of patients with ovarian cancer prescribed a PARP-I within the University of Pennsylvania practices from December 2018 through May 2021. We assessed prevalence of prior authorization for PARP-I overall, by frontline or recurrent maintenance, and by genetic status. We then assessed approval and appeal rates and time to PARP-I start. Results: Of 180 patients with a PARP-I prescription and information regarding prior authorization, 116 (64 %, 95 % CI 57-71) experienced prior authorization. Of patients in the frontline setting, 60 of 90 (67 %, 95 % CI 56-76) experienced prior authorization. Of patients prescribed PARP-I in recurrence, 55 of 85 (65 %, 95 % CI 54-74) experienced prior authorization. Having a germline or somatic genetic mutation was associated with higher risk of prior authorization (adjusted risk ratio 1.35, 95 %CI 1.09-1.67). 102 patients (89 %, 95 % CI 83-94) required one appeal, 8 required two appeals and 5 cases required 3 appeals. Five patients were denied. Mean time from PARP-I prescription to PARP-I start was 10 days longer for patients who experienced prior authorization. Conclusions: 64% of patients experienced prior authorization for PARP-I. Risk of prior authorization was increased for patients with BRCA, despite greater clinical benefit. Prior authorization contributes to delays in care, and reform is needed.

Taking Center Stage: Clinical Laboratory Leading Diagnostic Stewardship Efforts.

This article will discuss diagnostic stewardship from the perspective of those who are just starting, or have recently started, a diagnostic stewardship effort. This document will provide guidance on how to identify opportunities for intervention and tools that can be used to affect change. Specifically, we will discuss key components of a diagnostic stewardship committee, referral laboratory testing, prior authorization, miscellaneous test orders, establishing a laboratory test formulary, and conclude with some specific examples of interventions that can be considered.

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.

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.

Discordance Between Inflammatory Bowel Disease Specialists and Insurance Authorization Denials-A Survey of Specific Inflammatory Bowel Disease Treatment Scenarios.

Background: Prior authorizations are generally required by insurers for gastroenterologists to prescribe biologics and small-molecule drugs to treat inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Authorization denials occur in a wide variety of clinical scenarios, including denials of standard and nonstandard medication dosing. Methods: We performed a national cross-sectional survey on a broad variety of specific clinical scenarios to assess experience and opinions on whether or not insurance authorization denials are in accordance with clinical expertise. Results: Eighty-four gastroenterologists completed the survey. Denial experience was common for infliximab dose modifications, vedolizumab dose modifications, ustekinumab first-time therapy, and maintenance dosing. The bulk of disagreement with authorization denials involved scenarios of dose escalation and re-induction guided by both loss of clinical response and/or therapeutic drug monitoring, denial of re-authorizations of stable dosing, and use of non-anti-TNFs in specific patient populations including the elderly and patients with multiple comorbidities. Respondents unanimously agreed that insurance companies do not play an adequate role in helping patients obtain PA. Furthermore, most of the respondents agree that to decrease the burden of the PA process, peer-peer processes should be between other IBD-trained providers who understand these complex treatment strategies. Conclusions: Our cross-sectional survey highlights the degree of discordance in clinical decision-making between insurers and gastroenterologists. Further engagement between gastroenterologists and insurers is needed to foster common understanding on these discordant authorization denials in these real-world clinical IBD scenarios.

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.

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.

Pharmaceutical demand response to utilization management.

Prescription drug insurance increasingly imposes prior authorization (requiring providers to request coverage before claim approval) to manage utilization. Prior authorization has been criticized because of its administrative burden on providers. The primary alternative to managing utilization is imposing out-of-pocket (OOP) payment to incentivize beneficiaries to seek lower-cost care, effectively providing beneficiaries with partial insurance. Would beneficiaries prefer indirectly paying for prior authorization through higher premiums; or would they prefer prior authorization was replaced by higher OOP costs? This tradeoff depends on how much OOP costs could be displaced by prior authorization, which depends on their relative impact on demand. I estimate the effect of prior authorization and OOP costs on pharmaceutical demand in Medicare Part D, addressing endogeneity caused by unobserved drug quality and selection into plans. Despite criticism of prior authorization, I find that Medicare beneficiaries would prefer higher premiums to pay for prior authorization, over higher OOP costs.

Strategic Operational Redesign Improves Prior Authorization Access: A Validation Study.

Purpose: Obtaining prior authorization (PA) before treatment is becoming increasingly burdensome in oncology, especially in radiation oncology. Here, we describe the impact of a strategic novel operational PA redesign to shorten authorization time and to improve patient access to cancer care at a large United States academic proton therapy center. We ask whether such a redesign may be replicable and adoptable across oncology centers. Materials and Methods: Our PA redesign strategy was based on a 3-tiered approach. Specifically, we (1) held payors accountable to legally backed timelines, (2) leveraged expertise on insurance policies and practices, and (3) updated the submission, appeal writing, and planning procedures for PA. Metrics were compared at the following 3 time points: 6 months before, at phase-in, and at 6 months after intervention. Results: In analyzing the impact of improving PA access to care, the percentage of approvals for commercial proton beam therapy improved by an absolute 30.6% postintervention (P < .001). The proportion of commercially insured patients treated with proton beam therapy also increased by 6.2%, and the number of new starts rose by 11.7 patients/mo. Overall patient census increased by 13 patients/d. Median authorization time was 1 week, and 90% of surveyed providers reported reduced PA burden and improved patient care. Conclusion: This is the first validated, comprehensive operational strategy to improve access to cancer therapy while reducing the burden of PA. This novel approach may be helpful for addressing barriers to PA in medical and surgical oncology because the redesign is predicated on laws that regulate PA across disciplines.

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.

Elaborate biologic approval process delays care of patients with moderate-to-severe asthma.

Background: mAbs (biologics) are indicated in patients with poorly controlled moderate-to-severe asthma. The process of prior authorization and administration of a biologic requires exceptional commitment from clinical teams. Objective: Our aim was to evaluate the process of approval and administration of biologics for asthma and determine the most common reasons associated with denials of biologics and delays in administration. Methods: We examined the records of patients with asthma who were prescribed biologics from January 2018 to January 2020 at 2 centers, Montefiore Medical Center (Bronx, NY) and Scripps Clinics (San Diego, Calif). Demographics, insurance information, and details on the approval process were collected. Results: After querying of electronic health records, the records of 352 and 70 patients with moderate-to-severe asthma were included from Montefiore and Scripps, respectively. Most patients at Montefiore (58.2%) were insured under Managed Care Medicaid (MC Medicaid), whereas most patients at Scripps (61.4%) had commercial insurance. The median times from prescription to administration of a biologic were similar: 34 days (interquartile range [IQR] = 18-63 days) and 34 days (IQR = 22.5-56.0 days) (P = .97) for Montefiore and Scripps, respectively. However, the median approval time for Montefiore was 6 days (IQR = 1-20 days) and that for Scripps was 22 days (IQR = 10-36 days) (P < .001). Approval times for prescriptions requiring appeals were significantly longer than for prescriptions approved after the initial submission: 23 days versus 2.5 days and 40.5 days versus 15.5 days (for Montefiore and Scripps, respectively [P < .001 for both]). Conclusions: Lengthy appeals contribute to delays between prescribing and administering a biologic. Site-specific practices and insurance coverage influence approval timing of the biologics for asthma.