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.

The extent and growth of prior authorization in Medicare Advantage.

OBJECTIVES: To assess trends in the use of prior authorization requirements among Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive quantitative analysis. METHODS: Data were from the CMS MA benefit and enrollment files for 2009-2019, supplemented with area-level data on demographic and provider market characteristics. For each service category, we calculated the annual share of MA enrollees in plans requiring at least some prior authorization and plotted trends over time. We mapped the county-level share of MA enrollees exposed to prior authorization in 2009 vs 2019. We quantified the association between local share of MA enrollees exposed to prior authorization and characteristics of that county in the same year. Finally, we plotted the share of MA enrollees exposed to prior authorization requirements over time for the 6 largest MA carriers. RESULTS: From 2009 to 2019, the share of MA enrollees in plans requiring prior authorization for any service remained stable. By service category, the share of MA enrollees exposed to prior authorization ranged from 30.7% (physician specialist services) to 72.2% (durable medical equipment) in 2019, with most service categories requiring prior authorization more often over time. Several area-level demographic and provider market characteristics were associated with prior authorization requirements, but these associations weakened over time. The use of prior authorization varied widely across plans. CONCLUSIONS: In 2019, roughly 3 in 4 MA enrollees were in a plan requiring prior authorization. Service-level, area-level, and carrier-level patterns suggest a wide range of approaches to prior authorization requirements.

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.

The Wrong Fight-Prior Authorization.

This essay describes the author's experience with denial of prior authorization for imaging to complete cancer staging.

Medicaid Managed Care Prior Authorization For Buprenorphine Tied To State Partisanship And Health Plan Profit Status, 2018.

Buprenorphine is among the most effective drugs for treating opioid use disorder, yet only a quarter of Americans who need it receive it. Requiring prior authorization has been identified as an important barrier to buprenorphine access. However, the practice remains widespread in Medicaid-the largest insurer of Americans with opioid use disorder. In this study, we examined how prior authorization for buprenorphine is related to plan structure and state political environment, using data on all 266 comprehensive Medicaid managed care plans active in 2018. We found substantial variation in prior authorization use across states, with all plans requiring prior authorization in eleven states and no plans requiring it in thirteen other states. We found that for-profit plans and those located in Republican states were more likely to impose prior authorization policies. Our findings suggest that managed care plans' decisions regarding use of prior authorization may be shaped by internal pressures to control costs, as well as by differing partisan stances regarding the need to prevent criminal diversion of buprenorphine.

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 and Association With Delayed or Discontinued Prescription Fills.

PURPOSE: Prior authorization requirements are increasing but little is known about their effects on access to care. We examined the association of a new prior authorization policy with delayed or discontinued prescription fills for oral anticancer drugs among Medicare Part D beneficiaries. METHODS: Using Medicare part D claims data from 2010 to 2020, we studied beneficiaries regularly filling one of 11 oral anticancer drugs, defined as three 30-day fills in 120 days preceding the plan's prior authorization policy change on that drug and continuously enrolled in the same plan for 120 days before and after the policy change at the start of a new year. The control group consisted of beneficiaries meeting the same utilization criteria, but who were enrolled in plans at the same time that did not implement a prior authorization policy change. The outcomes of interest were discontinuation of the drug within 120 days (analyzed with regression analyses) and time (in days) to next fill after a prior authorization policy change (analyzed using a quasi-experimental difference-in-differences event study). RESULTS: The introduction of a new prior authorization on an established drug increased the odds of discontinuation within 120 days (adjusted odds ratio, 7.1 [95% CI, 6.0 to 8.5]; P < .001) and increased time to next fill by 9.7 days (95% CI, 8.2 to 11.2; P < .001), relative to patients whose plans did not have a prior authorization policy change. CONCLUSION: Introduction of a new prior authorization policy on an established drug regimen is associated with increased probability of discontinued and delayed care. For some conditions, this may represent a clinically consequential barrier to access. Waiving prior authorization for patients already established on a drug may improve adherence.

Association Between Copayment Assistance, Insurance Type, Prior Authorization, and Time to Receipt of Oral Anticancer Drugs.

PURPOSE: Oral anticancer drugs (OACDs) have become increasingly prevalent over the past decade. OACD prescriptions require coordination between payers and providers, which can delay drug receipt. We examined the association between insurance type, pursuit of copayment assistance, pursuit of prior authorization (PA), and time to receipt (TTR) for new OACD prescriptions. METHODS: We prospectively collected data on new OACD prescriptions for adult oncology patients from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2019, including demographic and clinical characteristics, insurance type, and pursuit of PA and copayment assistance. TTR was defined as the number of days from prescription to OACD receipt. We summarized TTR using cumulative incidence and compared TTR by insurance type, pursuit of copayment assistance, and PA activity using the log-rank test. RESULTS: Our cohort of 1,024 patients was 53% male, and 40% were younger than 65. Twenty-six percent had commercial insurance only, 16% had Medicaid only, and 59% had Medicare with or without additional insurance. Eighty-six percent of prescriptions were successfully received. Across all prescriptions, 69% involved PA activity, and 21% involved the copayment assistance process. In unadjusted analyses, prescriptions involving the copayment assistance process had longer TTR compared with those not involving assistance (log-rank P value = .005) and OACDs covered by Medicare/commercial insurance had a longer TTR compared with Medicaid (log-rank P value = .006). The PA process was not associated with TTR (log-rank P value = .124). CONCLUSION: The process for obtaining OACDs is complex. The copayment assistance process and Medicare/commercial insurance are associated with delayed TTR. New policies are needed to reduce time to OACD receipt.

Delay in prior authorization of biologic therapy: Another possible cause of healthcare disparity in IBD patients.

BACKGROUND: Biologics, a mainstay in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treatment, typically require prior authorization from insurance companies. Multiple studies show that African Americans are less likely to be prescribed biologics. The prior authorization process may perpetuate disparities in healthcare. This study evaluated the approval time for biologics in IBD. METHODS: A chart review of IBD patients seen in a university gastroenterology clinic over 5 years was performed. Patient gender, race, IBD subtype, biologic use, and insurance type were recorded. Insurance type was classified as private or public (Medicaid or Medicare). Biologic agents evaluated included infliximab, adalimumab, vedolizumab and ustekinumab. Length of time to approval (TTA) and length of time to first infusion or administration (TFI) were recorded. Analysis was performed using t-testing, Fisher's exact testing, and ANOVA with significance set at p<0.05. The study was IRB approved. RESULTS: 458 charts were analyzed. 66 patients were being treated with a biologic. 42 had private insurance, 16 Medicaid and 8 Medicare. 37 patients had ulcerative colitis, 27 Crohn's disease, and 2 indeterminate colitis. There were 38 men and 28 women. 32 patients were white, 26 African American, 1 Asian, 5 other, and 2 declined identification. Average TTA was 30.5 days (range 1-145) and average TFI was 45.3 days (range 2-166). African Americans were more often on public insurance compared to whites (p=0.0001). Crohn's disease compared to ulcerative colitis patients were more often on public insurance (p=0.017). Significantly more private compared to public insurance patients were on infliximab (p=0.001). Medicaid and Medicare patients had significantly longer mean TTAs than private insurance patients (49.1 and 52.7 vs 19.4 days, p=0.007). African Americans had significantly longer mean TTA compared to whites (45.9 vs 24.8 days, p=0.044). Crohn's disease compared to ulcerative colitis patients had significantly longer mean TTA (39.7 vs 21.8 days, p=0.050). DISCUSSION: This study shows that prior authorization for biologic therapy was longer for African Americans. Patients on public insurance also tend to have a longer TTA, and more African Americans were on public insurance compared to White patients in this study which may explain the difference in biologic access for African Americans.

Streamlining Prior Authorization to Improve Care.

This Viewpoint addresses the challenges of prior authorization: decreased access, delayed care, decreased patient satisfaction and outcomes, and increased clinician burnout.

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.

Geographic Variation in Qualified Health Plan Coverage and Prior Authorization Requirements for HIV Preexposure Prophylaxis.

Importance: HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a key component of the Ending the HIV Epidemic (EHE) Initiative to curb new HIV diagnoses. In October 2019, emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide was added as an approved formulation for PrEP in addition to emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate; despite availability of another formulation with a similar prevention indication, variations in coverage may limit access. Objective: To assess qualified health plan (QHP) coverage, prior authorization (PA) requirements, and specialty tiering for emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide following emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide approval as a PrEP treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed QHPs in the US that were compliant with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act from 2018 to 2020. QHPs were categorized by region and EHE priority jurisdictions. Data analysis occurred from March 2022 to March 2023. Exposures: Enrollment in a qualified health plan certified by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Main Outcome and Measures: Annual variation in QHP coverage and PA requirement for emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and/or emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide. Descriptive statistics were reported for all outcomes. A secondary outcome was whether the PrEP formulation was determined by the QHP to be placed on a specialty drug tier. Results: A total of 58 087 QHPs (19 533 for 2018; 17 007 for 2019; and 21 547 for 2020) were analyzed. QHPs covered emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (19 165 QHPs [98.1%] in 2018; 16 970 QHPs [99.8%] in 2019; 20 045 QHPs [94.8%] in 2020) at a higher rate than emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (17 391 QHPs [91.9%] in 2018; 15 757 QHPs [92.7%] in 2019; 18 836 QHPs [87.4%] in 2020). QHPs in the South required exclusive PA (ie, PA for 1 of the formulations even if the QHP covered both) for emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide at the highest rates in all 3 years. In the South, the rate of PA for emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate increased from 806 of 8023 QHPs (10.0%) in 2018 to 3466 of 7401 QHPs (46.8%) in 2020. QHPs with exclusive PA requirement for emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate were higher in EHE jurisdictions than non-EHE jurisdictions (difference: 2018, 0.9 percentage points; 2019, 3.5 percentage points; 2020, 29.1 percentage points). QHPs were more likely to place emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate on a specialty tier compared with emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (difference: 2018, 1.8 percentage points; 2019, 3.7 percentage points; 2020, 4.1 percentage points). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, despite similar indications for biomedical prevention, QHPs were more likely to cover emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate than emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide, and QHPs were also more likely to subject emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate to PA or place it on a specialty tier despite the broader clinical indication. QHP PA requirements of emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate following emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide approval does not reflect clinical guidelines. The requirements could reflect differences in clinical indication, manufacturer discounts, or anticipation of a changing regulations and emerging generics. High rates of exclusive PA for emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in areas where rates of HIV diagnoses are highest and PrEP is most needed (eg, the South and EHE priority jurisdictions) is concerning; policy solutions to address the growing PrEP health equity crisis could include regulator actions and a national PrEP program.

The Patient Experience of Prior Authorization for Cancer Care.

Importance: Prior authorization (PA) requires clinicians and patients to navigate a complex approval pathway. Resultant delays and denials can be particularly problematic for patients with cancer, who often need urgent treatment or symptom management. Objective: To investigate the patient perspective of PA for cancer-related care, including perceptions about the process, outcomes (including delays and denials), and patient administrative burden. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional, anonymous survey used a convenience sample of patients with PA experience. Participants were recruited using social media and email lists of US-based cancer advocacy organizations from July 1 to October 6, 2022. Exposure: Prior authorization for any cancer-related service. Main Outcomes and Measures: Delays to care, outcome of PA, communication, and changes in anxiety (measured on a scale of 0-100, with 0 indicating no anxiety and higher scores indicating higher levels of anxiety) and trust. Results: Of 178 respondents (158 women [88%], 151 non-Hispanic White respondents [84%], 164 respondents [92%] <65 years), 112 (63%) reported that their cancer care was approved and given as recommended, and 39 (22%) did not receive recommended care due to delays or denials. Most respondents (123 [69%]) reported a PA-related delay in care; of those with delayed care, 90 (73%) reported a delay of 2 or more weeks. Most respondents (119 [67%]) had to personally become involved in the PA process; 35 (20%) spent 11 or more hours dealing with PA issues. Overall, the PA experience was rated as bad (70 [40%]) or horrible (55 of 174 [32%]); ratings were associated with the length of delay (ρ = 0.36; P < .001) and the time spent on PA (ρ = 0.42; P < .001). Self-reported PA-related anxiety was higher than usual anxiety (mean [SD] score, 74.7 [20.2] vs 37.5 [22.6]; P < .001) and was correlated with delay length (ρ = 0.16; P = .04), time spent on PA (ρ = 0.27; P < .001), and overall PA experience (ρ = 0.34; P < .001). After PA, 159 respondents (89%) trusted their insurance company less, and 148 respondents (83%) trusted the health care system less. Patient involvement in the PA process was associated with increased odds of distrusting their insurance company (ß = 6.0; 95% CI, 1.9-19.2) and the health care system (ß = 3.3; 95% CI, 1.4-8.1) and of having a negative experience (ß = 6.6; 95% CI, 3.1-14.3). Conclusions and Relevance: This survey-based cross-sectional study of the patient experience with PA highlights an adverse outcome of PA: 22% of patients did not receive the care recommended by their treatment team because of PA. Most respondents experienced a delay in recommended oncology care, and delays were associated with increased anxiety, a negative perception of the PA process, and patient administrative burden.