Search

Objectives: In the United States (US), prescription drug coverage is subject to prior authorization (PA) criteria, which may vary between health plans and may exceed drug label requirements. This study aimed to characterize profiles and treatment history of patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) who initiated esketamine nasal spray, by stringency of their health plans' PA criteria relative to the esketamine label. Methods: Adults with evidence of TRD (≥2 antidepressant courses of adequate dose and duration) prior to initiating esketamine were identified using US insurance claims data (03/2016–02/2022). Based on health plan PA criteria for esketamine obtained from Managed Markets Insight & Technology data (05/2020–02/2022), patients were grouped into stringent (PA criteria exceeds label) and non-stringent (PA criteria less stringent or equal to label) cohorts. Patient treatment history before esketamine initiation was compared using Wilcoxon rank sum and Fisher's exact tests. Results: The stringent cohort included 168 patients (mean age: 45 years, 63% female) and the non-stringent cohort included 400 patients (mean age: 45 years, 70% female). During the ongoing major depressive episode before esketamine initiation, the stringent versus non-stringent cohort completed 3.9 versus 3.8 antidepressant treatment courses, on average (p = 0.217); 94.6% versus 96.8% used augmentation therapy (p = 0.240), including 59.3% versus 58.1% with an antipsychotic (p = 0.844), respectively. Conclusions: Regardless of health plan stringency, on average, patients exceeded US label-mandated number of antidepressant trials before esketamine initiation, which questions the need for health insurance plans PA criteria above label. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract 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.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. 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. 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. Using PA appeals mechanisms, while administratively onerous, resulted in the overturning of most initial denials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundPolicy is a powerful tool for systematically altering healthcare access and quality, but the research to policy gap impedes translating evidence-based practices into public policy and limits widespread improvements in service and population health outcomes. The US opioid epidemic disproportionately impacts Medicaid members who rely on publicly funded benefits to access evidence-based treatment including medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). A myriad of misaligned policies and evidence-use behaviors by policymakers across federal agencies, state Medicaid agencies, and managed care organizations limit coverage of and access to MOUD for Medicaid members. Dissemination strategies that improve policymakers' use of current evidence are critical to improving MOUD benefits and reducing health disparities. However, no research describes key determinants of Medicaid policymakers' evidence use behaviors or preferences, and few studies have examined data-driven approaches to developing dissemination strategies to enhance evidence-informed policymaking. This study aims to identify determinants and intermediaries that influence policymakers' evidence use behaviors, then develop and test data-driven tailored dissemination strategies that promote MOUD coverage in benefit arrays.MethodsGuided by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) framework, we will conduct a national survey of state Medicaid agency and managed care organization policymakers to identify determinants and intermediaries that influence how they seek, receive, and use research in their decision-making processes. We will use latent class methods to empirically identify subgroups of agencies with distinct evidence use behaviors. A 10-step dissemination strategy development and specification process will be used to tailor strategies to significant predictors identified for each latent class. Tailored dissemination strategies will be deployed to each class of policymakers and assessed for their acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility for delivering evidence about MOUD benefit design.DiscussionThis study will illuminate key determinants and intermediaries that influence policymakers' evidence use behaviors when designing benefits for MOUD. This study will produce a critically needed set of data-driven, tailored policy dissemination strategies. Study results will inform a subsequent multi-site trial measuring the effectiveness of tailored dissemination strategies on MOUD benefit design and implementation. Lessons from dissemination strategy development will inform future research about policymakers' evidence use preferences and offer a replicable process for tailoring dissemination strategies.

AbstractResearch objective Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUDs) – including methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone – are the most effective treatments for opioid use disorder (OUD). Historically, insurers have required prior authorization for MOUD, but prior authorization is often reported as a key barrier to MOUD prescribing. Some states have passed laws prohibiting MOUD prior authorization requirements. We sought to identify the frequency of MOUD prior authorization prohibitions in state laws and to categorize types of prohibitions.Methods We searched for regulations and statutes present in all U.S. states and Washington DC between 2005 and 2019 using MOUD-related terms in Westlaw legal software. In qualitative software, we coded laws discussing MOUD prior authorization using template analysis – a mixed deductive/inductive approach. Finally, we used coded laws to identify frequencies of states with prior authorization prohibitions, including changes over time.Results No states had laws prohibiting MOUD prior authorization between 2005 and 2015, with the first prohibition appearing in 2016. By 2019, fifteen states had MOUD prior authorization prohibitions. States varied significantly in their approach to prohibiting MOUD prior authorization. In 2019, it was more common for states to have MOUD prior authorization prohibitions applying to all insurers (n = 10 states) than to only Medicaid (n = 7 states) or only non-Medicaid insurers (n = 1 state). In 2019, general prior authorization prohibitions (n = 10 states) were more common than prohibitions only applicable to medications on the formulary, prohibitions only applicable to medications on the preferred drug list, prohibitions only applicable during the first 5 days of treatment, and prohibitions only applicable during the first 30 days of treatment.Conclusions The number of states with an MOUD prior authorization law prohibition increased in recent years. Such laws could help expand access to life-saving OUD treatments by making it easier for clinicians to prescribe MOUD.KEY MESSAGESNo states had MOUD prior authorization prohibitions between 2005 and 2015 in state statutes or regulations, and only one state had such a prohibition in 2016.By 2019, fifteen states had an MOUD prior authorization prohibition law.States varied significantly in their approach to prohibiting MOUD prior authorization, including with respect to the insurer type, duration of the prohibition, and applicable medication.

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.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Dose escalation of self-injectable biologic therapy for inflammatory bowel diseases may be required to counteract loss of response and/or low drug levels. Payors often require completion of a prior authorization (PA), which is a complex approval pathway before providing coverage. If the initial PA request is denied, clinic staff must complete a time and resource-intensive process to obtain medication approval. Aims: This study measured time from decision to dose escalate to insurance approval and evaluated impact of approval time on disease activity. Methods: This was a single-center retrospective analysis of adult patients with IBD prescribed an escalated dose of biologic therapy at an academic center with an integrated specialty pharmacy team from January to December 2018. Outcomes included time to insurance approval and the association between approval time and follow-up C-reactive protein (CRP) and Short Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (SIBDQ) scores. Associations were tested using linear regression analyses. Results: 220 patients were included, median age 39, 53% female, and 96% white. Overall median time from decision to dose escalate to insurance approval was 7 days [interquartile range (IQR) 1, 14]. Approval time was delayed when an appeal was required [median of 29 days (IQR 17, 43)]. Patients with a longer time to insurance approval were less likely to have CRP improvement (p = 0.019). Time to insurance approval did not significantly impact follow-up SIBDQ scores. Conclusion: Patients who had a longer time to insurance approval were less likely to have improvement in CRP, highlighting the negative clinical impact of a complex dose escalation process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUDs) – including methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone – are the most effective treatments for opioid use disorder (OUD). Historically, insurers have required prior authorization for MOUD, but prior authorization is often reported as a key barrier to MOUD prescribing. Some states have passed laws prohibiting MOUD prior authorization requirements. We sought to identify the frequency of MOUD prior authorization prohibitions in state laws and to categorize types of prohibitions. We searched for regulations and statutes present in all U.S. states and Washington DC between 2005 and 2019 using MOUD-related terms in Westlaw legal software. In qualitative software, we coded laws discussing MOUD prior authorization using template analysis – a mixed deductive/inductive approach. Finally, we used coded laws to identify frequencies of states with prior authorization prohibitions, including changes over time. No states had laws prohibiting MOUD prior authorization between 2005 and 2015, with the first prohibition appearing in 2016. By 2019, fifteen states had MOUD prior authorization prohibitions. States varied significantly in their approach to prohibiting MOUD prior authorization. In 2019, it was more common for states to have MOUD prior authorization prohibitions applying to all insurers (n = 10 states) than to only Medicaid (n = 7 states) or only non-Medicaid insurers (n = 1 state). In 2019, general prior authorization prohibitions (n = 10 states) were more common than prohibitions only applicable to medications on the formulary, prohibitions only applicable to medications on the preferred drug list, prohibitions only applicable during the first 5 days of treatment, and prohibitions only applicable during the first 30 days of treatment. The number of states with an MOUD prior authorization law prohibition increased in recent years. Such laws could help expand access to life-saving OUD treatments by making it easier for clinicians to prescribe MOUD. No states had MOUD prior authorization prohibitions between 2005 and 2015 in state statutes or regulations, and only one state had such a prohibition in 2016. By 2019, fifteen states had an MOUD prior authorization prohibition law. States varied significantly in their approach to prohibiting MOUD prior authorization, including with respect to the insurer type, duration of the prohibition, and applicable medication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Anticholinergics have been used in the treatment of overactive bladder (OAB), but their use is limited by poor tolerability and anticholinergic-related side effects. Increasingly, providers are discontinuing anticholinergic prescribing because of growing evidence of the association of anticholinergic use with increased risk of cognitive decline and other adverse effects. Newer medications for OAB, the β3-adrenergic receptor agonists mirabegron and vibegron, do not have anticholinergic properties and are typically well tolerated; however, many insurance plans have limited patient access to these newer OAB medications by requiring step therapy, meaning less expensive anticholinergic medications must be trialed and/or failed before a β3-agonist will be covered and dispensed. Thus, many patients are unable to easily access these medications. Step therapy and other drug utilization strategies (e.g., prior authorization) are often used to manage the growing costs of pharmaceuticals, but these policies do not always follow treatment guidelines and may harm patients as a result of treatment delays, discontinuations, or related increases in adverse events. Medical professionals have called for reform of drug utilization strategies through partnerships that include clinicians and policymakers. This narrative review discusses prescribing patterns for OAB treatment and the effect of switching between drugs, as well as the costs of step therapy and prior authorization on patients and prescribers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

Recently, some payers have limited access to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) to patients who have Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) grade 4 osteoarthritis only. This study compared the outcomes of patients who have KL grade 3 and 4 osteoarthritis after TKA to determine if this new policy is justified. This was a secondary analysis of a series originally established to collect outcomes for a single, cemented implant design. A total of 152 patients underwent primary, unilateral TKA at two centers from 2014 to 2016. Only patients who had KL grade 3 (n = 69) or 4 (n = 83) osteoarthritis were included. There was no difference in age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, or preoperative Knee Society Score (KSS) between the groups. Patients who had KL grade 4 disease had a higher body mass index. KSS and Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) were collected preoperatively and at 6 weeks, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively. Generalized linear models were used to compare outcomes. Controlling for demographics, improvements in KSS were comparable between the groups at all time points. There was no difference in KSS, FJS, and the proportion that achieved the patient acceptable symptom state for FJS at 2 years. Patients who had KL grade 3 and 4 osteoarthritis experienced similar improvement at all time points up to 2 years after primary TKA. There is no justification for payers to deny access to surgical treatment for patients who have KL grade 3 osteoarthritis and have otherwise failed nonoperative treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Insurance prior authorization (PA) is a determination of need, required by a health insurer for an ordered test/procedure. If the test/procedure is denied, a peer-to-peer (P2P) discussion between ordering provider and payer is used to appeal the decision. The objective of this study was to measure the number and patterns of unnecessary PA denials. This was a retrospective review at a quaternary cancer center from October 2021 to March 2022. Included were all patients with outpatient imaging orders for surgical planning or surveillance of gastrointestinal, endocrine, or skin cancer. Primary outcome was unnecessary initial denial (UID) defined as an order that required preauthorization, was initially denied by the insurer, and subsequently overturned by P2P. Nine hundred fifty seven orders were placed and 419 required PA (44%). Of tests requiring authorization, 55/419 (13.1%) were denied. Variability in the likelihood of initial denial was seen across insurers, ranging from 0% to 57%. Following P2P, 32/55 were overturned (58.2% UID). The insurers most likely to have a UID were Aetna (100%), Anthem (77.8%), and Cigna (50.0%). UID was most common for gastrointestinal (58.9%) and endocrine (58.3%) cancers. Average P2P was 33.5 min (interquartile range 28-40). The majority of imaging studies initially denied were overturned after P2P. If all UIDs were eliminated, this would represent 108 less P2P discussions with an estimated time-savings of 60.3 h annually within a high-volume surgical oncology practice. Combined personnel costs to the health systems and stress on patients with cancer due to image-associated PAs and P2P appear hard to justify. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Completing prior authorizations (PAs) can be a lengthy process, which can delay access to appropriate care. A 2017 American Academy of Dermatology survey highlighted that PAs are common across many dermatologic medication classes. However, little is known regarding the impact of PAs on patient care and resource use. Methods: To better characterize the burden of PAs on dermatology practices and their effects on patient care, a survey was conducted in February 2020 among U.S.-based dermatologists (N=3,000) and the Association of Dermatology Administrators/Managers (ADAM) members (N=718). Results: Respondents reported 24% of patients require PAs. Dermatologists and staff spend a mean of 3.3 hours/day on PAs. Sixty percent of dermatologists reported interrupting patient visits for PAs. Sixty-five percent respondents reported PAs were required for clobetasol, 76% for tretinoin, and 42% for 5-fluorouracil. Respondents noted 45% of PA determinations took beyond one week and 17% took beyond two weeks. Respondents reported 12% of PAs resulted in delaying or abandoning treatment and 17% resulted in less appropriate treatment. Conclusions: Prior authorization burden remains high and consumes substantial clinical resources, which may negatively impact patient care. Additionally, they result in prolonged treatment delays and are associated with delaying treatment, abandoning treatment, or using lesser treatment.

Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBM) induce drug manufacturers to offer rebates to insurers and employers by denying coverage through formulary exclusions, impeding physician prescription through prior authorization, and reducing patient drug use through cost sharing. As they tighten these access obstacles, PBMs reduce the net prices received by the manufacturers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dr. Jay Neufeld's story in If I Betray These Words is a detailed account of one physician's catastrophic journey through moral injury when caring for pediatric patients with complex medical conditions [1]. Many clinicians may recognize Jay's journey in their own experiences, but what deserves parallel consideration are the journeys of patients and families when they are accompanied by physicians at risk of moral injury. This case study illustrates the tight link between drivers of physician moral injury and patients' negative healthcare experiences. These include (1) decisions directed by health insurance regulations and prior authorizations; (2) the electronic medical record (EMR); and (3) healthcare systems focused on revenue generation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prior authorization (PA) may be a necessary evil within the healthcare system, contributing to physician burnout and delaying necessary care, but also allowing payers to prevent wasting resources on redundant, expensive, and/or ineffective care. PA has become an "informatics issue" with the rise of automated methods for PA review, championed in the Health Level 7 International's (HL7's) DaVinci Project. DaVinci proposes using rule-based methods to automate PA, a time-tested strategy with known limitations. This article proposes an alternative that may be more human-centric, using artificial intelligence (AI) methods for the computation of authorization decisions. We believe that by combining modern approaches for accessing and exchanging existing electronic health data with AI methods tailored to reflect the judgments of expert panels that include patient representatives, and refined with "few shot" learning approaches to prevent bias, we could create a just and efficient process that serves the interests of society as a whole. Efficient simulation of human appropriateness assessments from existing data using AI methods could eliminate burdens and bottlenecks while preserving PA's benefits as a tool to limit inappropriate care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundThe recent introduction of direct acting antivirals for the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) has dramatically improved treatment options for HCV infected patients. However, in the United States (US) treatment uptake has been low and time to initiation of therapy has been long. We sought to examine provider perspectives of facilitators and barriers to HCV treatment delivery.MethodsFrom June to August 2019, we conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with medical staff providing HCV care as part of a university medical center in Los Angeles, CA. In order to understand the HCV treatment process, we interviewed key staff members providing care to the majority of HCV patients seeking care at the university medical center, including hepatologists and infectious disease specialists as well as key nursing and pharmacy staff. The interviews focused on workload and activities required for HCV treatment initiation for non-cirrhotic, treatment naïve patients.ResultsProviders noted that successful HCV treatment delivery was reliant on a care model involving close collaboration between a team of providers, in particular requiring a highly coordinated effort between dedicated nursing and pharmacy staff. The HCV care team overwhelmingly reported that the process of insurance authorization was the greatest obstacle delaying treatment initiation and noted that very few patient level factors served as a barrier to treatment uptake.ConclusionsIn the US, prior authorization for HCV treatment is a requirement for most public and private insurance plans. In an era with access to therapies that allow for a cure-and until revocation of prior authorization for HCV treatment is a reality-implementing strategies that can expedite authorization to accelerate treatment access are critical. Not only will this benefit patients, but it has the potential to help expand treatment to settings that are otherwise too resource strained to successfully deliver HCV care.

Drug expenditure in the United States has continued to increase unsustainably; the specialty of dermatology has been particularly affected. Resources are limited - someone has to make decisions about what treatments will be covered and how they will be reimbursed. Step therapy is a cost-control method used by insurers to encourage the use of the most cost-effective treatments before more expensive options are attempted. However, a rigid step therapy policy can be problematic when protocols are out of date, or delay necessary treatment leading to unnecessary suffering, increased morbidity, and overall cost. To address some of these concerns, the proposed Safe Step Act (S. 2546 and H.R. 2279) attempts to create a requirement that insurers provide a transparent, expeditious exceptions process for step therapy protocols. Increased flexibility in this process will allow for the unique circumstances of individual patients and improve access to expensive drugs for special cases. However, this bill may be exploited, further weakening insurers' ability to negotiate on cost. We should be cautious about measures that reduce the effectiveness of this tool, particularly if we, as a society, aim to expand access to basic care to all Americans.

Recent attempts have been made to use preoperative patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) thresholds as prior authorization criteria based on the assumption that patients who have higher baseline scores are less likely to achieve the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). This study aimed to identify factors affecting the achievement of MCID and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) after total hip arthroplasty (THA), and to determine the overlap between the two outcomes. We identified 3,581 primary, unilateral THAs performed at a single practice in 2015-2019. PROMs including Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (HOOS-JR) and 12-item Short Form Health Survey were collected preoperatively and 1-year postoperatively. The likelihood of attaining PASS according to attainment of MCID was assessed. Multivariable regression was used to identify independent predictors of MCID and PASS. In total, 79.8% achieved MCID and 73.6% achieved PASS for HOOS-JR. Approximately 1 in 7 patients who achieved MCID did not eventually achieve PASS. Worse preoperative HOOS-JR (odd ratio 0.933) was associated with MCID attainment. Better preoperative HOOS-JR (odd ratio 1.015) was associated with PASS attainment. Men, lower body mass index, better American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and better preoperative 12-item Short Form Health Survey mental score were predictors of MCID and PASS. Age, race, ethnicity, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and smoking status were not significant predictors. Preoperative PROMs were associated with achieving MCID and PASS after THA, albeit in opposite directions. Clinicians should strive to help patients "feel better" and "feel good" after surgery. Preoperative PROMs should not solely be used to prioritize access to care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy PointsLow‐value care is common in clinical practice, leading to patient harm and wasted spending. Much of this low‐value care stems from the use of medical device‐based procedures.We describe here a novel academic‐policymaker collaboration in which evidence‐based clinical coverage for device‐based procedures is implemented through prior authorization‐based policies for Louisiana's Medicaid beneficiary population.This process involves eight steps: 1) identifying low‐value medical device‐based procedures based on clinical evidence review, 2) quantifying utilization and reimbursement, 3) reviewing clinical coverage policies to identify opportunities to align coverage with evidence, 4) using a low‐value device selection index, 5) developing an evidence synthesis and policy proposal, 6) stakeholder engagement and input, 7) policy implementation, and 8) policy evaluation. This strategy holds significant potential to reduce low‐value device‐based care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Prescription prior authorization (PA) and prohibitive out‐of‐pocket costs are encountered across all specialties of care. These barriers are burdensome for prescribers and patients due to the multiple steps required to gain approval for payer reimbursement for medications. Objectives: The primary objective was to characterize clinical pharmacist impact on medication appeals and high cost resolution. Methods: This was a retrospective review of medication access intervention data collected from January 1, 2021, through July 31, 2021, at an academic medical center where five clinical pharmacists are embedded across 11 specialty and family medicine clinics. Intervention data was documented for both specialty and nonspecialty prescriptions. The primary end point quantified and characterized interventions based on access issues, defined as insurance denial or high out‐of‐pocket cost. Additional end points included time to appeal determination, total time spent on appeal activities, the incidence of denials, duration of the interruption, and assistance dollars secured for cost‐related barriers. Results: Over the 7‐mo period, there were 531 prescriptions identified for clinical pharmacist access intervention. Of the total interventions collected, 42% (n = 221) were appeals for insurance denials and 58% (n = 310) addressed high out‐of‐pocket cost. The approval rate of appeals was 94% (n = 208). The majority of appeals (89%) were submitted within 3 d. The median time to appeal determination was five calendar days. The estimated time spent on appeal activities by the clinical pharmacists was 6.8 work wk. There were 51 patients of therapy interruption. The total assistance dollars secured for high out‐of‐pocket costs reached an estimated $1 953 200 over the report period.ConclusionThis report characterizes an approach to effectively manage medication appeals and cost resolution through embedded clinical pharmacists. Leveraging embedded pharmacists' clinical knowledge and familiarity with payer processes in medication appeals achieved a 94% approval rate. The current payer process places a burden disproportionately on prescribers and patients, delaying or preventing medication access. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. 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. 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%). 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The nonspecific symptoms of Valley fever, or coccidioidomycosis, hinders its proper diagnosis. This results in unnecessary health care costs and antibiotic usage. Thus, this study seeks to determine the coverage of the Valley fever diagnostic test as provided by Arizona insurance companies to increase early diagnosis rates. Methods Through scripted messaging and telephone communications, we contacted 40 health insurance companies in Arizona about their coverage of CPT 86635 (antibody diagnostic assay for Coccidioides) without prior authorization under all plan types provided in both primary and urgent care settings. If prior authorization was required, we discussed the coverage of ICD-10 codes J18.9 (pneumonia, unspecified organism), J18.1 (lobar pneumonia, unspecified organism), or L52 (erythema nodosum). Results Of the 40 health insurance companies contacted, 25 did not answer our inquiries, most requiring member-specific information to share coverage data. The remaining 15 companies covered Valley fever testing, of which 4 required prior authorization for the ICD-10 codes of interest. Of these 15 companies, 14 provided coverage in primary and urgent care settings, and 13 provided coverage for all available plans. Conclusion All payers that provided information covered Valley Fever testing. Most of the insurance companies that were unable to answer our inquiry likely cover Valley fever testing, but were unable to share information with third party inquiries. Obtaining general coverage information is difficult, which can potentially impact patient care.

Abstract Background Processes such as prior authorization (PA) for medications, implemented by health insurance companies to ensure that safe, appropriate, cost-effective, and evidence-based care is provided to all members, have created inefficiencies within healthcare systems. Thus, healthcare systems have implemented supplemental processes to reduce burden and ensure efficiency, timeliness, and appropriate care. Objective Evaluate implementation outcomes of two initiatives related to PA for medications: a common record that records all PA-related information that was integrated into the health record and an auto-routing of specialty prescriptions to a hospital-owned specialty pharmacy. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with medical staff to understand their experience, acceptability, adoption, and feasibility of these initiatives guided by Proctor’s Framework for Implementation Outcomes. Transcripts were analyzed using consensus coding. Results Eleven medical staff participated in semi-structured interviews. The two initiatives were analyzed together because the findings were similar across both for our outcomes of acceptability, adoption, and feasibility. Participants found the implemented initiatives to be acceptable and beneficial but felt there were still challenges with the new workflow. The initiatives were fully adopted by only one clinic site within the healthcare system, but limitations arose when adopting to another site. Individuals felt the initiatives were feasible and improved workflow, communication, and transparency. However, participants described future adaptations that would help improve this process including improved standardization, automation, and transparency. Conclusion The acceptability, adoption, and feasibility of two initiatives to improve the PA process within the one clinical site were well received but issues of generalizability limited the initiatives adoption system wide.

BACKGROUND: Delays in initiating breast cancer treatment may affect patients' outcomes, complicate the timing of laboratory testing and follow-up, and are a source of anxiety and frustration for patients. Health-system specialty pharmacies (HSSPs) have been shown to improve outcomes for patients. OBJECTIVES: To characterize the institutional prescription process, compare the time to first fill for new palbociclib prescriptions filled at an HSSP and at external specialty pharmacies, and to evaluate the impact of different factors on the time to first fill of palbociclib therapy. METHODS: This singlecenter, retrospective analysis of prescription data included adult patients diagnosed with advanced or metastatic hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative breast cancer who received their first palbociclib prescription between May 5, 2018, and June 30, 2019, at Mayo Clinic Cancer Center in Rochester, MN. We collected information from the electronic medical records using internal HSSP reporting tools, and by contacting external pharmacies manually by phone. We compared the time to the first palbociclib prescription fill between our institution's HSSP and the external specialty pharmacies that were used by our patients. The impact of prior authorizations (PAs), prescription reissues, and pharmacy network requirements were also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 88 patients were identified for the primary analysis. The patients were divided into 2 cohorts based on whether their first fill was at our HSSP (N = 49) or at external specialty pharmacies (N = 39). The median time to first fill was 12 days (interquartile range [IQR], 818) for the external specialty pharmacies cohort and 6 days (IQR, 410) for our HSSP cohort (P <.001). The median time from the prescription being issued to the PA approval was 2 days in both groups. CONCLUSION: Our findings add to the growing literature showing that HSSPs can reduce the time to first fill for patients who initiate oncolytic oral therapies compared with first fill at external specialty pharmacies. Delays in the time to first fill can be multifactorial; HSSPs are uniquely positioned to overcome barriers to medication access. In addition, broad improvements in technology and insurance plan design have the potential to streamline the entire prescription medication delivery process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The use of preoperative patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) thresholds for patient selection in arthroplasty care has been questioned recently. This study aimed to identify factors affecting achievement of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and determine the overlap between the two outcomes.Methods: We identified 1,239 primary, unilateral TKAs performed at a single institution in 2015-2019. PROMs including the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (KOOS-JR) and 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) were collected preoperatively and 1-year postoperatively. The likelihood of attaining PASS as per attainment of MCID was assessed. A multivariable regression was used to identify predictors of MCID and PASS.Results: In total, 71.3% achieved MCID and 75.5% achieved PASS for KOOS-JR. Only 7.7% achieved MCID but not PASS, whereas almost twice this number did not achieve MCID but did achieve PASS (11.9%). Poorer preoperative KOOS-JR (OR 0.925), better SF-12 physical (OR 1.025), and mental (OR 1.027) were associated with MCID attainment. In contrast, better preoperative KOOS-JR (OR 1.030) and SF-12 mental (OR 1.025) were associated with PASS attainment. Age, gender, race, ethnicity, body mass index, Charlson index, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, and smoking status were not significant predictors.Conclusion: Preoperative PROMs were associated with achieving MCID and PASS after TKA, albeit some positively and some negatively. In the era of value-based care, clinicians should not only strive to help patients "feel better" but also ensure that patients "feel good" after surgery. This study does not support the use of PROMs in prioritizing access to care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUDs), including methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone, decrease mortality and morbidity for people with opioid use disorder (OUD). Buprenorphine and methadone have the strongest evidence base among MOUDs. Unlike methadone, buprenorphine may be prescribed in office-based settings in the U.S., including by nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) who have a federal waiver and adhere to federal patient limits. Buprenorphine is underutilized nationally, particularly in rural areas, and NPs/PAs could help address this gap. Therefore, we sought to identify perceptions of buprenorphine efficacy and perceptions of prescribing barriers among NPs/PAs. We also sought to compare perceived buprenorphine efficacy and perceived prescribing barriers between waivered and non-waivered NPs/PAs, as well as to compare perceived buprenorphine efficacy to perceived naltrexone and methadone efficacy. Methods: We disseminated an online survey to a random national sample of NPs/PAs. We used Mann–Whitney U tests to compare between waivered and non-waivered respondents. We used non-parametric Friedman tests and post-hoc Wilcoxon signed-rank tests to compare perceptions of medication types. Results: 240 respondents participated (6.5% response rate). Most respondents agreed buprenorphine is efficacious and believed counseling and peer support should complement buprenorphine. Buprenorphine was generally perceived as more efficacious than both naltrexone and methadone. Perceived buprenorphine efficacy and prescribing barriers differed by waiver status. Non-waivered practitioners were more likely than waivered practitioners to have concerns about buprenorphine affecting patient mix. Among waivered NPs/PAs, key buprenorphine prescribing barriers were insurance prior authorization and detoxification access. Conclusions: Our results suggest that different policies should target perceived barriers affecting waivered versus non-waivered NPs/PAs. Concerns about patient mix suggest stigmatization of patients with OUD. NP/PA education is needed about comparative medication efficaciousness, particularly regarding methadone. Even though many buprenorphine treatment patients benefits from counseling and/or peer support groups, NPs/PAs should be informed that such psychosocial treatment methods are not necessary for all buprenorphine patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Comprehensive biomarker testing has become the standard of care for informing the choice of the most appropriate targeted therapy for many patients with advanced cancer. Despite evidence demonstrating the need for comprehensive biomarker testing to enable the selection of appropriate targeted therapies and immunotherapy, the incorporation of biomarker testing into clinical practice lags behind recommendations in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Coverage policy differences across insurance health plans have limited the accessibility of comprehensive biomarker testing largely to patients whose insurance covers the recommended testing or those who can pay for the testing, and this has contributed to health disparities. Furthermore, even when insurance coverage exists for recommended biomarker testing, patients may incur burdensome out‐of‐pocket costs depending on their insurance plan benefits, which may also create barriers to testing. Prior authorization for biomarker testing for some patients can add an administrative burden and may delay testing and thus treatment if it is not done in a timely manner. Recently, three states (Illinois, Louisiana, and California) passed laws designed to improve access to biomarker testing at the state level. However, there is variability among these laws in terms of the population affected, the stage of cancer, and whether the coverage of testing is mandated, or the legislation addresses only prior authorization. Advocacy efforts by patient advocates, health care professionals, and professional societies are imperative at the state level to further improve coverage for and access to appropriate biomarker testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of a clinic embedded Medication Assistance Program (MAP) specialist on the prescription benefit prior authorization (PA) process and provider satisfaction in an adult pulmonary clinic. Methods: In this mixed methods study, a retrospective cohort analysis was done to determine the turnaround time for the PA process from initial referral to approval or final denial in an adult pulmonary clinic. Additionally, a pre- and post-implementation survey to providers was conducted to assess provider satisfaction and perceptions around the prescription benefit PA process. The first study aim assessed PA efficiency by summarizing PA approval rate and PA turnaround time using descriptive statistics. Any prescriptions written by a clinic provider requiring a PA during the timeframe of June 2018 through August 2018 were included. The second study aim assessed change in provider satisfaction, analyzed via the Mann-Whitney U test. Results: The MAP specialist completed 110 PAs over 3 months for 110 unique patients. Median turnaround time was 3 hours, with 76% of PAs approved in less than 24 hours. Initial approval rate was 82.7%, and overall approval rate following the appeals process was 87.3%. A significant difference between the pre- and post-survey responses were identified in 2 of the 17 questions. Conclusion: Implementation of a clinic embedded MAP specialist to complete PAs demonstrated an efficient process while also improving provider satisfaction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prior authorizations (PAs) for biologic medications, used to treat Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD), are often denied by Pharmacy Benefits Managers and can require a complex appeal process for patients to gain access to medication., Objective: This quality improvement project evaluated the impact of implementing a standardized appeal letter template and customizable clinical rationale letter content on specialty pharmacist workflow and workload in an integrated Hospital Health System Specialty Pharmacy (HSSP) IBD clinic., Practice Description: This initiative was conducted in an IBD outpatient clinic at a tertiary academic medical center with an integrated HSSP whose specialty pharmacists work collaboratively with providers to manage specialty medications., Practice Innovation: A letter template was created in the electronic health record (EHR) for pharmacists to use when submitting appeal letters. The template automatically populates patient results from recent labs, imaging, and clinic visit notes as part of the appeal documentation. Clinical rationale letter content was developed for the most common appeal reasons using EHR functionality that allows the creation of standardized notes that can be shared among team members and customized at time of use., Evaluation Method: An analysis of 2 months of data pre/post implementation was conducted using descriptive statistics to report the number of appeals submitted, time from PA denial to appeal submission, and appeal approval rate. A pharmacist post implementation satisfaction score was also collected., Results: The number of appeals submitted pre- (n=73) and post-implementation (n=73) was the same. Post-implementation, 89% of appeals were submitted within 3 days of PA denial compared to 29% pre-implementation. PA approval rate was high (93%) pre- and post-implementation. Overall pharmacist satisfaction was 9.7 out of 10., Conclusion: Implementation of an appeal letter template and standardized clinical rationale letter content in the EHR led to decreased time to appeal submission and high specialty pharmacist satisfaction., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Introduction: Insurer-mandated barriers to timely initiation of advanced therapies used to treat inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have been shown to worsen clinical outcomes and increase healthcare utilization, yet rarely alter the medication ultimately prescribed., Methods: We conducted a survey within the IBD Partners longitudinal cohort to evaluate the frequency and patient-reported impacts of medication utilization barriers on insurance satisfaction and clinical outcomes. Barriers included medication denials, prior authorizations, and forced medication switches. Variables associated with insurance satisfaction, measured on a 1-7 Likert scale, were identified. The association between insurance-related barriers and downstream clinical outcomes (surgery, corticosteroid requirement, and disease activity) were evaluated., Results: Two thousand seventeen patients (age 45 [interquartile range 34-58] years, 73% female) were included. Seventy-two percent experienced an insurer-mandated barrier, most commonly prior authorizations (51%). Fifteen percent were denied an IBD medication by their insurer, 22% experienced an insurance-related gap in therapy, and 8% were forced by their insurer to switch from an effective medication. Insurance satisfaction was negatively associated with medication denials, prior authorization-related delays, gaps in therapy, and high-deductible health plan coverage. In the year following the initial survey, several insurance barriers were linked to negative downstream clinical outcomes, including prior authorizations associated with corticosteroid rescue (odds ratio [OR] 2.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.25-4.00), forced medication switches associated with continued disease activity (OR 3.28, 95% CI 1.56-6.89), and medication denials associated with IBD-related surgery (OR 8.92, 95% CI 1.97-40.39)., Discussion: These data illustrate the frequency and negative impacts of insurer-mandated medication barriers on patients with IBD, including decreased insurance satisfaction and negative downstream clinical outcomes., (Copyright © 2024 by The American College of Gastroenterology.)

Introduction: Total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) has become increasingly utilized for managing glenohumeral osteoarthritis (GHOA), with procedure rates expected to rise. Consequently, there has been a surge in prior authorization (PA) requests for TSA, imposing a substantial administrative burden and highlighting the need for physician advocates to challenge the current PA system. A notable PA requirement is preoperative physical therapy (PT), a treatment modality for GHOA that has not been extensively studied and is not endorsed by the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgery (AAOS) as necessary for the treatment for GHOA., Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search using PubMed, Embase, and Medline, adhering to PRISMA guidelines. Our search focused on studies with level IV evidence or higher that examined the efficacy preoperative PT for patients with GHOA., Results: We found 210 studies of which three met our inclusion criteria. Our results were mixed, with two of the three studies supporting the use of preoperative PT. Only one study employed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) design, underscoring the need for more high-quality studies in this area., Discussion/conclusion: Our findings suggest that there is limited evidence for the benefit of preoperative PT in GHOA. This contradicts the current PA requirements which require patients to undergo preoperative PT to receive coverage for treatment. This review highlights the need for physician engagement in advocacy efforts to challenge these current requirements and improve patient care., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Little is known about the extent of prior authorization requirements in otolaryngology. We performed a secondary analysis of data comparing prior authorization (PA) policies across 5 major Medicare Advantage insurers to estimate the counterfactual proportion of 2021 Medicare Part B fee-for-service spending and utilization for commonly performed otolaryngologic procedures that would have required PA. The counterfactual proportion of spending (range: 20.4%-27.6%) and utilization (range: 1.8%-4.5%) requiring PA was relatively consistent across insurers and largely attributable to rhinologic procedures. However, PA requirements for specific services varied widely among insurers. Among the 70 (of 196; 35.7%) services subject to PA by any insurer, nearly half were subject to PA by a single insurer (n = 34; 48.6%). Only 10 (14.3%) services were subject to PA by 4 (n = 6; 8.6%) or 5 (n = 4; 5.7%) insurers. These discrepancies illustrate the challenges of navigating discordant insurer policies for otolaryngologists and raise concerns about the validity of certain PA requirements., (© 2024 The Author(s). Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Foundation.)

Abstract Background Antipsychotic prescribing to Medicaid-enrolled youth has been the target of numerous policy initiatives, including prior authorization and quality monitoring programs, which often target specific populations. Whether these efforts have changed the level or composition of antipsychotic prescribing is unclear. Methods Using 2014–2018 administrative claims data for Medicaid enrollees aged 21 years and under in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, we measured antipsychotic prescription fills overall and for youth without an approved indication (autism, bipolar disorder, or psychosis). We then assessed whether trends differed for populations that have been targeted by policy initiatives, including younger children and foster care-enrolled youth. We also identified the most common approved and unapproved indications and examined whether the treatment duration of antipsychotic prescriptions differed based on whether the youth had an approved or unapproved indication. Results Overall, the number of Medicaid youth with an antipsychotic prescription fill halved between 2014 and 2018. Youth aged 17 years and under and foster care-enrolled youth, who were targeted by prior authorization and quality improvement efforts, experienced larger declines. Roughly half of prescriptions were for unapproved indications in both 2014 and 2018; the most common unapproved indication was ADHD, and the treatment duration was shorter for unapproved indications compared to approved indications. Conclusions Antipsychotic prescribing to Medicaid-enrolled youth is declining, particularly among populations that have been targeted by policy initiatives like prior authorization and quality monitoring programs. Despite the fact that these initiatives often assess diagnostic criteria, half of antipsychotic prescriptions were for unapproved indications in both 2014 and 2018. More research is needed to gauge whether this prescribing is appropriate.

Objective: After a nondenial prior authorization program evaluates orders for peripheral artery revascularization (PAR), ordering physicians sometimes withdraw their orders based upon program recommendations. Some patients with withdrawn orders receive PAR if claudication does not resolve. To characterize patient outcomes under this program, we evaluated whether associations existed between the withdrawal of patients' initial PAR orders and the presence of claims for PAR and claims mentioning intermittent claudication (IC) in the following 16 weeks. Methods: Orders for PAR placed from 1/1/19 to 9/30/19 for patients with Medicare Advantage health plans were extracted from a national healthcare organization's database. Claims data from 0 to 16 weeks following the order were reviewed to determine if patients had downstream PAR claims, or if they had emergency department or hospital claims mentioning IC. Chi-square tests were used to assess the association between order withdrawal and downstream PAR, as well as claims mentioning IC. Multivariate logistic regressions were run to assess the same, controlling for patient age, sex, urbanicity, local median income, state obesity rate, type of PAR, ordering physician specialty, and whether PAR was ordered in a hospital setting. Results: Of 1588 orders meeting inclusion criteria, 71.9% (1038/1444) of authorized orders and 61.1% (88/144) of withdrawn orders were followed by PAR within 16 weeks, a significant difference (P <.01). Relatedly, 69.8% (1008/1444) of authorized orders and 70.8% (102/144) of withdrawn orders were followed by IC claims, an insignificant difference. Multivariate logistic regressions showed patients with withdrawn PAR orders had significantly lower adjusted odds of PAR (OR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.44–0.91), but an insignificant difference in their adjusted odds of IC (OR: 1.10; CI: 0.76–1.64). Conclusions: Although patients with withdrawn PAR orders were significantly less likely to receive PAR in the subsequent 16 weeks, no association was found between withdrawn PAR orders and subsequent claims mentioning IC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]